Skip to main content

Full text of "Ancient history : from the earliest times to the fall of the Western empire : comprising the history of Chaldæa, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Lydia, Phnicia, Syria, Judæa, Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Greece, Macedonia, Parthia, and Rome"

See other formats

presented  to  the 


the   Estate  of 
Mrs.   Anne  Fisher 


Social  Sciences  &  Humanities  Library 

University  of  California,  San  Diego 
Please  Note:  This  item  is  subject  to  recall. 

Date  Due 

MAY  3  1  200e 

CI  39  (5/97) 

UCSD  Lib. 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 

3  1822  02468  7444 

y  i'^i.vt  i^g,^^iisaig^iyLa^c^f^^p^ii£jti^^^*vi\i4^^ 


Timothy  Dwight.  D.D.  LLD. 
Richard  Henry5toddard 
Arthvr  Richmond  Marsh.  AB. 
Pavlvan  Dyke.D.D. 
Albert  Ellery  Bergh 




pace  portraits  of  great- avthors  ^? 
Clarence  Cook    Art  Editor 


y^w^p^^  lit  ^11  1.H  n  tt.  Jxi.^n-jKa.  -ti  k  -n  t%  ^**^ 





-•^m-r'^  rt 

m  # 


{Canon   of  Canterbury  and  Camden  Professor  of  Ancient 
Ilis'tory  at  the  University  of  Oxford.) 



PHaNICIA,    SYRIA,    JUDi€A,    EGYPT,    CARTHAGE,      fl 


GE0RGE(RAWLIN§i21i^.M-A>,  F.R.G.S. 





in  E 



Copyright,  1899, 
By  the  colonial  PRESS. 



IN  annotating  the  Biblical  text,  concerning  the  "  making  of 
many  books,"  a  fourteenth  century  commentator  declared 
most  positively  that  the  only  books  which  might  be  read 
without  harmful  results  are  "  the  bokis  of  hooli  scripture  "  and 
"  other  bokis  that  ben  needful  to  the  understanding  of  hooli 

Solomon  and  our  mediaeval  sage  would  scarcely  have  cause 
to  reverse  their  opinion  if  they  had  to  pass  judgment  on  the  bulk 
of  modem  publications.  To-day  superficiality  and  sensation 
reign  supreme,  and  the  classics  of  literature  are  barely  circu- 
lated. The  classics  are  largely  relegated  to  the  shelves  of 
public  libraries,  which  are  obviously  only  accessible  to  a  small 
proportion  of  readers. 

There  has  been  an  effort,  of  late,  to  supply  the  reading  public 
with  various  encyclopaedias  of  literature,  which,  so  far  as  the 
literary  selections  are  concerned,  bring  to  mind  the  grumbler's 
comment  on  his  dinner,  "  It's  all  very  well  as  far  as  it  goes,  and 
there's  a  good  deal  of  it,  too,  such  as  it  is."  These  encyclo- 
paedias are  in  the  nature  of  anthologies,  and,  while  they  may 
be  very  useful  as  literary  scrap-books,  they  fail  to  satisfy  those 
who  wish  to  possess  the  classics  in  their  entirety. 

The  projectors  of  the  present  series  of  books  have  made  it 
possible  for  readers  to  possess  a  carefully  selected  library  of 
the  world's  great  classics.  The  publishers  of  this  series  have 
no  desire  to  pose  as  educational  philanthropists.  They  claim, 
however,  that  the  publication  of  these  classics  will  certainly  tend 
to  increase  the  reading  of  the  best  books  of  all  time,  Carlyle 
said  that  a  collection  of  books  is  a  real  university.  In  that 
sense  the  present  collection  ought  to  prove  invaluable  to  those 


who  wish  to  enjoy  the  perusal  of  books  referred  to  by  Lowell 
as  the  supreme  books  in  literature. 

The  art  of  printing  has  revolutionized  the  world.  The  print- 
ing-press has  proved  far  more  potent  than  any  other  civilizing 
influence.  Learning  is  no  longer  confined  to  the  few.  The 
literature  of  civilization  is  free  to  all.  "  He  that  runs  may 
read."  The  danger  lies  in  reading  everything  we  run  across. 
Indiscriminate  reading  is  seldom  beneficial. 

While  the  printing-press  has  proved  a  potent  power  for  good, 
it  has  also  been  used  for  ignominious  purposes.  In  many 
quarters  the  first  consideration  in  accepting  an  author's  manu- 
script to-day  is  not  whether  it  be  a  book  that  is  worthy  of  pub- 
lication, but  whether  it  be  a  book  that  is  sufficiently  sensational 
to  make  it  sell.  There  exists,  however,  a  large  and  growing 
class  of  readers  who  are  not  satisfied  with  these  superficial 
books  of  the  hour.  They  crave  for  something  more  substan- 
tial than  the  sensational  reading-matter  offered  them  in  "  up-to- 
date  "  novels,  decadent  newspapers,  and  catch-penny  maga- 
zines. The  times  are  ripe  for  a  revival  of  the  fittest.  On  the 
intellectual  horizon  of  the  twentieth  century  breaks  the  dawn 
of  a  literary  renaissance.  The  workers  of  the  world  long  for 
"more  light."  They  desire  to  have  the  gates  of  knowledge 
thrown  wide  open,  recognizing  instinctively  that  "  knowledge 
is  power,"  and  that  those  who  toil  will  ever  be  governed  by 
those  who  think. 

In  the  early  days  of  printing,  the  books  to  which  the  people 
had  access  were  few  and  far  between.  To-day  the  world  is 
flooded  with  books,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent.  The  question 
is  no  longer  how  can  I  obtain  a  printed  book,  but  how  am  I  to 
know  what  printed  book  to  read?  This  is  a  most  important 
question  for  those  whose  leisure  for  reading  is  limited.  "  The 
world,"  says  Frederick  Harrison,  in  his  scholarly  essay  on  the 
choice  of  books,  "  has  long  ago  closed  the  great  assize  of  letters 
and  judged  the  first  places  everywhere.  In  such  a  matter  the 
judgment  of  the  world,  guided  and  informed  by  a  long  succes- 
sion of  accomplished  critics,  is  almost  unerring.  There  may 
be  doubts  about  the  third  and  the  fourth  rank,  but  the  first  and 
second  are  hardly  open  to  discussion." 


The  books  of  the  present  library  all  come  under  the  head  of 
classics — books  conforming  to  the  best  authority  in  literature 
—books  of  acknowledged  excellence.  Read  them !  There  is 
nothing  except  human  love  from  which  you  can  derive  greater 
happiness  than  the  love  of  reading.  Books  prove  companions 
in  sorrow  and  solitude.  They  assuage  the  pangs  of  physical 
pain.  They  enable  you  to  commune  with  all  the  master  minds 
of  by-gone  ages.  The  light  of  intellect  flashes  across  the 
printed  page.  The  recorded  thoughts  of  literature  live  on  for- 
ever. Books  are  the  "  legacies  of  genius."  We  are  all  heirs 
to  the  magic  realm  of  fancy,  the  republic  of  letters,  the  glorious 
domain  of  immortal  thought.  The  pyramids  of  Nubia  and 
Egypt,  the  palaces  and  sculptured  slabs  of  Nineveh,  the  Cy- 
clopean walls  of  Italy  and  Greece,  the  temples  of  India — none 
have  escaped  the  ravages  of  Time.  The  beautiful  statues  of  an- 
tiquity— the  Venus  of  Melos,  the  sculptures  of  the  Parthenon — 
will  sooner  or  later  vanish  from  the  face  of  earth.  But  the 
poetry  of  Homer,  Dante,  and  Shakespeare,  the  philosophy  of 
Plato  and  Aristotle,  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  and  Socrates,  the 
eloquence  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  will  last  as  long  as  Earth 
itself.  The  material  creations  of  art  crumble  to  dust.  Soul- 
stirring  thoughts,  the  creations  of  intellect,  alone  survive. 

"  To  be  without  books,"  exclaims  Ruskin,  "  is  the  abyss  of 
penury ;  don't  endure  it."  Books  that  we  own  after  awhile 
become  actual  companions.  "  He  that  loveth  a  book,"  says 
Isaac  Barrow,  *'  will  never  want  a  faithful  friend,  a  wholesome 
counsellor,  a  cheerful  companion  or  effectual  comforter.  By 
study,  by  reading,  by  thinking,  one  may  innocently  divert  and 
pleasantly  entertain  himself  as  in  all  weathers,  so  in  all  fortune." 
The  books  of  the  present  series  cover  a  wide  field.  The  first 
ten  volumes  contain  "  histories  "  that  have  been  crowned  as 
classics  by  the  consensus  of  critical  opinion.  The  authors  of 
these  historical  volumes  are  Rawlinson,  Hallam,  Michelet, 
Green.  Guizot,  Carlyle,  and  Creasy.  The  subjects  treated  in 
the  succeeding  ten  volumes  are  Philosophy,  Political  Economy, 
Science,  Government,  and  Law.  The  third  section  is  devoted 
mainly  to  Classic  Essays  and  Classic  Orations,  while  the  last 
ten  volumes  comprise  English  Literature,  Oriental  Literature, 


Classic  Drama,  Poetry,  and  Ethics.  The  authors  selected  in- 
clude only  the  master  minds  of  ancient  and  modern  times. 

The  art  features  comprise  photogravures  from  famous  paint- 
ings and  classic  sculpture,  portraits  of  authors,  fac-simile  illu- 
minations of  mediaeval  books  and  manuscripts,  choice  examples 
of  early  printing  and  engraving,  and  various  other  illustrations. 

On  the  Library  Committee  are  such  competent  judges  of 
good  books  as  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight,  ex-President  of  Yale  Uni- 
versity ;  Richard  Henry  Stoddard,  poet  and  literary  critic ;  Dr. 
Paul  van  Dyke,  of  Princeton,  and  Prof.  Arthur  Richmond 
Marsh,  of  Harvard.  Each  of  the  classics  selected  has  a  special 
introduction  by  a  writer  fully  qualified  to  give  a  critical  analysis 
of  the  work  in  question.  Every  available  device  in  the  art  of 
book-making  has  been  brought  into  service  to  make  these  vol- 
umes attractive,  and  the  type,  paper,  and  binding  are  of  excel- 
lent quality. 

The  present  library  is  in  the  nature  of  a  "  University  Exten- 
sion," for  it  aims  to  provide  a  fuller  and  broader  intellectual  life 
rather  than  any  technical  perfection.  The  trend  of  the  times  is 
toward  mental  culture.  In  the  "  World's  Great  Classics  "  the 
intellectual  pleasures  and  luxuries  of  life  are  made  accessible 
to  every  home  where  the  love  of  reading  prevails.  The  pub- 
lishers have  provided  a  feast  with  the  "  Immortals."  The  flow 
of  soul  comes  from  the  authors  of  all  ages.  Let  the  toast  be 
what  Alfonso,  King  of  Aragon,  was  wont  to  say  were  the  four 
best  things  of  life :  "  Old  wood  to  burn !  Old  wine  to  drink ! 
Old  friends  to  converse  with !  Old  books  to  read !  "  Sic  itur 
ad  astra. 

^^^^^/^5^s^   A^i^^ 

Managing  Editor. 

TfAfOTHY  VWlGJiT,  I\1K.  LL.D. 
(PrtsiMnt  of  Yaie  Univrrsity.) 
I  ■■:  J  pbotogra/A  by  Pofb 


THE  author  of  this  volume  is  one  of  the  many  notable  ex- 
amples of  scholarship  in  the  English  clergy.  He  is  best 
known  as  Canon  Rawlinson.  One  of  his  most  widely 
read  papers  was  his  "  Present  Day  Tract "  on  the  "  Early 
Prevalence  of  Monotheistic  Belief."  He  supplied  the  com- 
ments on  numerous  books  of  the  Old  Testament  to  "  The 
Speaker's  Commentary  "  and  the  excellence  of  his  work  made 
him  a  favorite  with  many  students. 

George  Rawlinson  was  born  in  1815  in  Oxfordshire,  Eng- 
land, being  five  years  younger  than  his  brother,  Sir  Henry  Cres- 
wicke  Rawlinson,  D.C.L.,  the  Orientalist  and  diplomat.  Both 
were  educated  at  Ealing  School,  the  former  graduating  from 
Oxford  with  classical  honors  in  1838.  He  became  a  fellow  of 
Exeter  College  in  1840,  Bampton  Lecturer  in  1859,  Camden 
Professor  of  Ancient  History  at  Oxford  in  1861,  holding  that 
office  until  1889,  when  he  resigned.  In  1872  he  was  appointed 
Canon  of  Canterbury  Cathedral.  The  mere  titles  of  his  books 
indicate  what  a  prodigious  worker  he  has  been.  His  industry 
is  amazing  and  his  achievements  surprising  even  for  a  life  un- 
usually long.  In  addition  to  his  manual  of  "  Ancient  History/' 
he  has  written  the  following  historical  works :  "  The  Five  Great 
Monarchies  of  the  Ancient  Eastern  World,"  "  The  Sixth  Great 
Oriental  Monarchy,  or  the  Geography,  History,  and  Antiquities 
of  Parthia,"  "  The  Seventh  Great  Oriental  Monarchy,  or  the 
Geography,  History  and  Antiquities  of  the  Sassanian  or  New 
Persian  Empire,"  "  History  of  Ancient  Egypt,"  "  Religions  of 
the  Ancient  World,"  "  Eg\pt  and  Babylon,"  a  history  of 
"  Phoenicia,"  and  in  connection  with  his  brother  and  Sir  Gard- 
ner Wilkinson,  a  translation  of  Herodotus  with  extensive  notes 
and  illustrations.    His  Bampton  lectures  in  1859  ^^re  upon 


"The  Historical  Evidence  of  the  Truth  of  the  Scripture 
Records."  In  addition  to  all  this  Canon  Rawlinson  has  written 
much  in  the  shape  of  special  articles  for  such  works  as  Smith's 
"  Bible  Dictionary  "  and  the  magazines.  He  wrote  the  article 
on  Herodotus  in  the  ninth  edition  of  the  "  Encyclopaedia  Britan- 
nica,"  and  in  1893  he  wrote  the  volume  on  "  Parthia  "  in  "  The 
Story  of  the  Nations  "  series.  He  held  the  office  of  Classical 
Examiner  under  the  Council  of  Military  Education  from  1859 — 
1870,  and  has  been  Proctor  in  Convocation  for  the  Dean  and 
Chapter  of  Canterbury  since  1873. 

His  manual  of  "  Ancient  History  "  is  professedly  intended  to 
take  the  place  of  Heeren's  "  Handbuch."  Readers  of  Herodotus 
are  charmed  by  that  garrulous  and  entertaining  old  story-teller, 
"  the  father  of  history."  But  Herodotus  did  not  err  on  the 
critical  side.  He  was  interested  in  everything  he  heard.  He 
was  not  a  scientific  annalist  coldly  sifting  evidence,  though  he 
was  not  blindly  credulous.  Nevertheless  he  admitted  many 
things,  wisely  so,  on  rather  slender  evidence.  Harrison  says 
that  the  reader  of  Herodotus  needs  such  a  manual  as  Heeren's, 
and  Rawlinson's  manual,  on  the  same  plan,  now  takes  its  place 
It  covers  the  same  ground  and  in  much  the  same  fashion.  Raw- 
linson writing  later,  has,  of  course,  corrected  many  statements, 
revised  many  judgments,  and  has  carefully  embodied  the  dis- 
coveries and  researches  of  the  present  century.  This  adds  the 
labor  of  at  least  three  most  active  and  fruitful  generations  to 
Heeren's  g^eat  work.  Rawlinson's  manual  is  not  intended  to  be 
a  popular  treatise  for  light  reading.  Its  preparation  was  not  the 
idle  pastime  of  an  idle  day.  Its  author  was  a  student,  patiently 
investigating  details,  and  bringing  a  perfect  mass  of  them  before 
the  reader. 

This  manual  is  most  valuable  for  the  general  reader  and  the 
right  kind  of  students.  Its  bibliography  alone  would  make  it 
a  gjeat  work.  There  is  probably  no  better  list  of  authorities  on 
the  period  and  nations  covered.  And  one  can  forgive  the  text 
for  lacking  the  rhetorical  embellishments  which  characterize 
certain  histories  in  view  of  Canon  Rawlinson's  painstaking  facts 
presented  in  such  abundance.    At  a  time  when  history  is  tend- 


ing  to  become  scientific  in  the  larger  sense,  our  debt  to  the  fact- 
gatherer  is  immense.  Philosophy,  Literature,  and  Art  are  all 
dependent  upon  him.  And  at  a  time  when  men's  interest  in 
ancient  history  is  experiencing  a  revival  like  the  quickened  de- 
votion to  child  study,  the  republication  of  this  manual  appears 
most  timely.  Ancient  History  is  a  vital  part  of  Modem  History. 
"  The  past  is  only  the  present  in  a  less  developed  form."  Divi- 
sions between  Ancient  and  Modern  History  are  purely  arbitrary. 
Ancient  History  occurred  in  a  part  of  the  world  far  distant 
from  us.  For  long  ages  it  continued  distant,  but  the  modem 
Westem  nations  have  a  keen  and  vital  interest  in  the  far  Eastern 
world  to-day.  Asia  and  Africa,  subjects  of  Book  I.  in  this 
manual,  never  were  so  close  to  England  and  America  as  at  pres- 
ent. The  distant  in  space  has  been  brought  near.  The  ancient 
is  made  recent  by  such  studies  as  this.  Dr.  Charles  Kendall 
Adams,  President  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  and  a  noted 
historical  critic,  says  in  his  manual  of  "  Historical  Literature  ** 
that  "  as  a  guide  to  a  student  in  the  thorough  study  of  Ancient 
History,  Rawlinson's  manual  has  no  equal  in  our  language." 

William  F.  McDowell. 


THE  work  here  given  to  the  public  has  been  contem- 
plated by  the  author  for  several  years.  The  "  Hand- 
biich "  of  Professor  Heeren,  originally  published 
in  1799,  and  corrected  by  its  writer  up  to  the  year  1828, 
is,  so  far  as  he  knows,  the  only  modem  work  of  reputa- 
tion treating  in  a  compendious  form  the  subject  of  An- 
cient History  generally.  Partial  works,  i.e.,  works  embracing 
portions  of  the  field,  have  been  put  forth  more  recently,  as, 
particularly,  the  important  "  Manuel "  of  M.  Lenormant 
(Manuel  d'histoire  ancienne  de  V Orient  jusqu'aux  guerres  Me- 
diqiies.  Paris,  1868 — 69 ;  3  vols.  i2mo.)  But  no  work  with  the 
scope  and  on  the  scale  of  Professor  Heeren's  has,  so  far  as  the 
present  writer  is  aware,  made  its  appearance  since  1828.  That 
work  itself,  in  its  English  dress,  is,  he  believes,  out  of  print; 
and  it  is  one,  so  great  a  portion  of  which  has  become  antiquated 
by  the  progress  of  historical  criticism  and  discovery,  that  it  can 
not  now  be  recommended  to  the  student,  unless  with  large  re- 
serves and  numerous  cautions.  Under  these  circumstances,  it 
seemed  to  the  present  writer  desirable  to  replace  the  "  Hand- 
buch  "  of  Heeren  by  a  manual  conceived  on  the  same  scale,  ex- 
tending over  the  same  period,  and  treating  (in  the  main)  of  the 
same  nations. 

Heeren's  Hand-book  always  appeared  to  him  admirable  in 
design,  and,  considering  the  period  at  which  it  was  written,  ex- 
cellent in  execution.  He  has  been  content  to  adopt,  generally, 
its  scheme  and  divisions;  merely  seeking  in  every  case  to  bring 
the  history  up  to  the  level  of  our  present  advanced  knowledge, 
and  to  embody  in  his  work  all  the  really  ascertained  results  of 
modem  research  and  discovery.  He  has  not  suffered  himself 
to  be  tempted  by  the  example  of  M.  Lenormant  to  include  in  the 



manual  an  account  of  the  Arabians  or  the  Indians ;  since  he  has 
not  been  able  to  convince  himself  that  either  the  native  tradi- 
tions of  the  former,  as  reported  by  Abulfeda,  Ibn-Khaldoun, 
and  others,  or  the  epic  poems  of  the  latter  (the  Maha  Bharata 
and  Ramayana),  are  trustworthy  sources  of  history.  With 
more  hesitation  he  has  decided  on  not  including  in  his  present 
work  the  history  of  the  Sassanidae,  which  is  sufficiently  authen- 
tic, and  which  in  part  runs  parallel  with  a  period  that  the  manual 
embraces.  But,  on  the  whole,  it  appeared  to  him  that  the  Sas- 
sanidae belonged  as  much  to  Modern  as  to  Ancient  History — 
to  the  Byzantine  as  to  the  Roman  period.  And,  in  a  doubtful 
case,  the  demands  of  brevity,  which  he  felt  to  be  imperative  in 
such  a  work  as  a  manual,  seemed  entitled  to  turn  the  scale. 




History. — History  Proper,  its  divisions. — Ancient  History,  how  best 
distinguished  from  Modern. — Sources  of  History:  i.  Antiquities; 
2.  Written  Records,  including  (a)  Inscriptions,  (b)  Books. — Im- 
portance of  Inscriptions. — Coins. — Books,  ancient  and  modern. — 
Cognate  sciences  to  History:  i.  Chronology;  2.  Geography. — 
Chief  eras. — Chronological  Monuments. — Works  on  Chronologfy. 
— Works  on  Geography. — Modes  of  dividing  Ancient  History. — 
Scheme  of  the  Work 


History  of  the  Ancient  Asiatic  and  African  States  and  Kingdoms 
from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Foundation  of  the  Persian  Monar- 
chy by  Cyrus  the  Great IS 

PART  I.— Asiatic  Nations. 

Preliminary  Remarks  on  the  Geography  of  Asia IS 

Preliminary  Observations  on  the  General  Character  of  the  Early 

Asiatic  Kingdoms   25 

History  of  the  Ancient  Asiatic  Kingdoms  previous  to  Cyrus 28 

I.  Chaldaean   Monarchy   28 

II.  Assyrian  Monarchy  30 

III.  Median  Monarchy  32 

IV.  Babylonian  Monarchy 34 

V.  Kingdoms  in  Asia  Minor:  i.  Phrygia;  2.  Cilicia;  3.  Lydia.     35 

VI.  Phoenicia 37 

VI  I.  Syria  41 

VIH.  Judxa  41 

a.  From  the  Exodus  to  the  Establishment  of  the  Mon- 

archy      42 

b.  From  the  Establishment  of  the  Monarchy  to  the  Separa- 

tion into  two  Kingdoms 43 

e.  From  the  Separation  of  the  Kingdoms  to  the  Captivity 

under   Nebuchadnezzar 46 



PART  II. — African  Nations.  p^^.^ 

Preliminary  Remarks  on  the  Geography  of  Ancient  Africa 49 

Historical  Sketch  of  the  Ancient  African  States 51 

I-  Egypt 54 

XL  Carthage  65 

a.  From  the  Foundation  of  the  City  to  the  Commencement 

of  the  Wars  with  Syracuse 65 

b.  From  the  Commencement  of  the  Wars  with  Syracuse 

to  the  Breaking-out  of  the  First  War  with  Rome 71 


History  of  Persia  from  the  Accession  of  Cyrus  to  the  Destruction  of 
the  Empire  by  Alexander  the  Great 77 


History  of  the  Grecian  States  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Acces- 
sion of  Alexander  the  Great 97 

Geographical  Outline  of  Greece 97 


The  Ancient  Traditional  History,  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the 
Dorian  Occupation  of  the  Peloponnese 109 

History  of  Greece  from  the  Dorian  Conquest  of  the  Peloponnese  to 

the  Commencement  of  the  Wars  with  Persia 114 

Part  I.  History  of  the  principal  Hellenic  States  in  Greece  Proper. .   114 

I.  Sparta 117 

II.  Athens  120 

Part  XL  History  of  the  other  Grecian  States 123 

X.  In  the  Peloponnese: 

o.  Achaea   123 

b.  Arcadia   * 124 

c.  Corinth    125 

d.  Elis  126 

e.  Sicyon   126 

II.  In  Central  Greece: 

a.  Megaris 127 

b.  Boeotia 128 

c.  Phocis    129 

d.  Locris   130 

e.  ^tolia   130 

f.  Acarnania  130 


III.  In  Northern  Greece:  pact 

a.  Thessaly    131 

b.  Epirus   133 

IV.  In  the  Islands:  • 

a.  Corcyra     133 

b.  Cephallenia 133 

c.  Zacynthus  133 

d.  iCgina  133 

e.  EubcEa  '. 134 

f.  The  Cyclades 134 

g.  Lemnos 134 

A.  Thasos 135 

i.  Crete  135 

;.  Cyprus  137 

V.  Greek  Colonies  138 

History  of  Greece  from  the  Commencement  of  the  Wars  with 
Persia  to  the  Battle  of  Chaeroneia 140 

BOOK    IV. 

History  of  the  Macedonian  Monarchy 163 

Geographical  Outline  of  Macedonia 163 

Historical  Sketch  of  the  Monarchy: 

From  the  Commencement  of  the  Monarchy  to  the  Death  of  Alexan- 
der the  Great 164 

From  the  Death  of  Alexander  the  Great  to  the  Battle  of  Ipsus 176 

History  of  the  States  into  which  the  Macedonian  Monarchy  was 

broken  up  after  the  Battle  of  Ipsus 183 

Part  I.      History  of  the  Syrian  Kingdom  of  the  Seleucidae 183 

Part  II.     History  of  the  Egyptian  Kingdom  of  the  Ptolemies 194 

Part  III.  History  of  Macedonia,  and  of  Greece,  from  the  Death  of 

Alexander  to  the  Roman  Conquest 210 

Part  IV.  History  of  the  Smaller  States  and  Kingdoms  formed  out 

of  the  Fragments  of  Alexander's  Monarchy 229 

I.  Kingdom  of  Pergamus 230 

II.  Kingdom  of  Bithynia 234 

III.  Kingdom  of  Paphlagonia 238 

IV.  Kingdom  of  Pontus 239 

V.  Kingdom  of  Cappadocia 245 



VI.  Kingdom  of  Greater  Armenia « 249 

VII.  Kingdom  of  Armenia  Minor 251 

VIII.  Kingdom  of  Bactria 252 

IX.  Kingdom  of  Parthia 254 

X.  Kingdom  of  Judaea 255 

a.  From  the  Captivity  to  the  Fall  of  the  Persian  Em- 

pire    255 

b.  From  the  Fall  of  the   Persian  Empire  to  the  Re- 

establishment  of  an  Independent  Kingdom 258 

c.  From  the  Re-establishment  of  an  Independent  King- 

dom to  the  Full  Establishment  of  the  Power  of 
Rome 260 

d.  From  the  Full  Establishment  of  Roman  Power  to 

the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus 261 

PART  I. — History  of  Rome. 

Preliminary  Remarks  on  the  Geography  of  Ancient  Italy 267 

Sketch  of  the  History  of  Rome:- 

The  Ancient  Traditional  History  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the 
Commencement  of  the  Republic 281 

From  the  Foundation  of  the  Republic  to  the  Commencement  of 
the  Samnite  Wars 296 

From  the  Breaking  out  of  the  First  Samnite  War  to  the  Commence- 
ment of  the  Wars  with  Carthage 317 

From  the  Commencement  of  the  First  War  wtth  Carthage  to  the 
Rise  of  the  Civil  Broils  under  the  Gracchi 327 

From  the  Commencement  of  Internal  Troubles  under  the  Gracchi 
to  the  Establishment  of  the  Empire  under  Augustus 351 

From  the  Establishment  of  the  Empire  under  Augustus  to  the 

Destruction  of  the  Roman  Power  in  the  West  by  Odoacer 384 

Preliminary  Remarks  on  the  Geographical  Extent  and  Principal 

Divisions  of  the  Roman  Empire 384 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Roman  Empire:  page 

First  Section.  From  the  Battle  of  Actium  to  the  Death  of  Com- 
modus  397 

Second  Section.  From  the  Death  of  Commodus  to  the  Acces- 
sion of  Diocletian 427 

Third  Section.  From  the  Accession  of  Diocletian  to  the  Final 
Division  of  the  Empire 442 

Fourth  Section.  History  of  the  Western  Empire  from  the  Ac- 
cession of  Honorius,  a.d.  395,  to  the  Deposition  of  Romulus  Au- 
gustus, A.D.  476 462 

PART  n.— History  of  Parthia. 

Geographical  Outline  of  the  Parthian  Empire 472 

Sketch  of  the  History  of  Parthia: 

From  the  Foundation  of  the  Kingdom  by  Arsaces  to  the  Estab- 
lishment of  the  Empire  by  Mithridates  1 476 

From  the  Establishment  of  the  Empire  by  Mithridates  I.  to  the 
Commencement  of  the  Wars  with  Rome 479 

From  the  Commencement  of  the  Wars  with  Rome  to  the  De- 
struction of  the  Empire  by  Artaxerxes 484 



Fac-similes  from  Illuminated  Manuscripts  and  Illustrated   Books 
of  Early  Date. 

From  tbe  Cottdi  Litre  d'Hetires,  written  in  France  about  1490. 

This  plate  is  an  excellent  specimen  of  French  work.  The  chief  miniature  is  an 
Annunciation,  which  seems  to  be  taking  place  in  a  private  oratory,  while  the 
borders  look  like  sections  of  a  Gothic  church,  with  niches  and  fretwork,  and  the 
columns  which  yield  compartments  for  smaller  miniatures. 


George  Rawlinson,  Canon  of  Canterbury 

Photogravure  from  a  photograph 

Timothy  Dwight,  D.D.,  LL.D.  (Portrait)    . 
Photogravure  from  a  photograph 

Miniature  of  the  Annunciation 

Fac-simile  lUamination  from  the  Conde  Livre  d'Heores 

Helen  of  Troy 

Photogravure  from  a  painting 

Mental  Education  of  a  Greek  Youth  . 

Photogravure  from  a  painting 

TuLLiA  Driving  Over  Her  Father's  Corpse 

Photogravure  from  a  painting 










The  word  "  History,"  which  etymologically  means  "  in- 
quiry "  or  "  research,"  and  which  has  many  sUghtly  differing 
uses,  is  attached  in  modem  parlance  pre-eminently  and  espe- 
cially to  accounts  of  the  rise,  progress,  and  affairs  of  Nations. 
The  consideration  of  man,  prior  to  the  formation  of  political 
communities  and  apart  from  them,  belongs  to  Natural  History 
— and  especially  to  that  branch  of  it  which  is  called  Anthro- 
pologn^' — but  not  to  History  Proper.  History  Proper  is  the  his- 
tory of  States  or  Nations,  both  in  respect  to  their  internal  af- 
fairs and  in  regard  to  their  dealings  one  with  another.  Under 
the  former  head,  one  of  the  most  important  branches  is  Consti- 
tutional History,  or  the  history  of  Governments;  under  the 
latter  are  included  not  only  accounts  of  the  wars,  but  likewise 
of  the  friendly  relations  of  the  different  States,  and  of  their  com- 
mercial or  other  intercourse. 

Anthropology,  though  not  History  Proper,  is  akin  to  it,  and  is  a 
science  of  which  the  historical  student  should  not  be  ignorant  It  treats 
of  man  prior  to  the  time  when  history  takes  him  up,  and  thus  forms, 
in  some  sort,  the  basis  on  which  history  rests.  The  original  condition 
of  man,  his  primary  habitat  or  place  of  abode,  the  mode  and  time  of 
his  dispersion;  the  questions  of  the  formation  of  races,  of  their  differ- 
ences, and  of  their  affinities:  these,  and  similar  subjects,  which  belong 
properly  to  anthropology,  are  of  interest  to  the  historian,  and  underlie 
his  proper  field.  The  most  important  works  bearing  on  these  matters 

"  The  Book  of  Genesis  " — ^the  only  extant  work  which  claims  to  give 

an  authoritative  account  of  the  creation  and  dispersion  of  mankind,  and 

which  is  universally  admitted  to  contain  most  interesting  notices  of  the 

primitive  condition  of  the  human  race,  and  of  important  facts  belonging 



to  very  remote  times.  Kalisch's  "  Historical  and  Critical  Commen- 
tary," London,  Longman,  1855,  contains  a  mass  of  valuable,  though 
not  always  quite  sober,  illustration  from  the  best  modern  sources. 

"  The  Physical  History  of  Mankind,"  by  Dr.  Prichard,  London,  3d 
edition,  1836 — a  work  of  great  grasp  and  power,  elaborately  illustrated, 
and  in  many  respects  of  enduring  value;  but  in  some  points  behind 
the  existing  state  of  our  knowledge.  Not,  however,  at  present  super- 
seded by  any  general  work. 

"  Prehistoric  Man,"  by  Sir  John  Lubbock.  London,  1866.  This 
book  is  based  mainly  on  recent  researches  into  the  earliest  vestiges 
of  man  upon  the  earth,  as  those  believed  to  have  been  found  under- 
neath the  floors  of  caves,  in  ancient  gravel  deposits,  in  the  soil  at  the 
bottom  of  lakes,  in  the  so-called  "  kitchen-middings,"  and  the  like. 
It  is  well  illustrated. 

History  Proper  is  usually  divided  either  into  two  or  into 
three  portions.  If  the  triple  division  is  adopted,  the  portions 
are  called,  respectively,  "  Ancient  History,"  the  "  History  of 
the  Middle  Ages,"  and  "  Modern  History."  If  the  twofold 
division  is  preferred,  the  middle  portion  is  suppressed,  and  His- 
tory is  regarded  as  falling  under  the  two  heads  of  "  Ancient " 
and  "  Modern." 

"  Ancient "  History  is  improperly  separated  from  "  Modern  " 
by  the  arbitrary  assumption  of  a  particular  date.  A  truer, 
better,  and  more  convenient  division  may  be  made  by  regard- 
ing as  ancient  all  that  belongs  to  a  state  of  things  which  has 
completely  passed  away,  and  as  modern  all  that  connects  itself 
inseparably  with  the  present.  In  Western  Europe  the  irrup- 
tion of  the  Northern  Barbarians,  in  Eastern  Europe,  in  Asia, 
and  in  Africa,  the  Mohammedan  conquests  form  the  line  of 
demarcation  between  the  two  portions  of  the  historic  field; 
since  these  events  brought  to  a  close  the  old  condition  of  things 
and  introduced  the  condition  which  continues  to  the  present 

The  Sources  of  History  fall  under  the  two  heads  of  written 
records,  and  antiquities,  or  the  actual  extant  remains  of  ancient 
times,  whether  buildings,  excavations,  sculptures,  pictures, 
vases,  or  other  productions  of  art.  These  antiquities  exist  either 
in  the  countries  anciently  inhabited  by  the  several  nations, 
where  they  may  be  seen  in  situ;  or  in  museums,  to  which  they 
have  been  removed  by  the  modems,  partly  for  their  better 
preservation,  partly  for  the  purposes  of  general  study  and  com- 


parison;  or,  finally,  in  private  collections,  where  they  are  for 
the  most  part  inaccessible,  and  subserve  the  vanity  of  the 

No  general  attempt  has  ever  been  made  to  collect  into  one  work 
a  description  or  representation  of  all  these  various  remains;  and,  in- 
deed, their  multiplicity  is  so  great  that  such  a  collection  is  barely  con- 
ceivable. Works,  however,  on  limited  portions  of  the  great  field  of 
"Antiquities"  are  numerous;  and  frequent  mention  will  have  to  be 
made  of  them  in  speaking  of  the  sources  for  the  history  of  different 
states  and  periods.  Here  those  only  will  be  noticed  which  have  some- 
thing of  a  general  character. 

Oberlin,  "  Orbis  antiqui  monumentis  suis  illustrati  primae  linea:." 
Argentorati,  1790.  Extremely  defective,  but  remarkable,  considering 
the  time  at  which  it  was  written. 

Caylus,  **  Recueil  d'Antiquites  Egyptiennes,  Etrusques,  Grecques  et 
Romaines."  Paris,  1752-67.  Full  of  interest,  but  with  engravings  of 
a  very  rude  and  primitive  character. 

Montfaucon,  "  L'Antiquite  expliquee  et  representee  en  figures." 
Paris,  1719-24;    IS  vols.,  folio. 

Smith,  Dr.  W.,  "  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities." 
London,  2d  edition,  1853. 

Fergusson,  James,  "  History  of  Architecture  in  all  Countries,  from 
the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Present  Day."    London,  1865-67. 

Birch,  Samuel,  "  Ancient  Pottery."    London,  1858. 

The  second  source  of  Ancient  History,  written  records,  is 
at  once  more  copious  and  more  important  than  the  other.  It 
consists  of  two  main  classes  of  documents — (i)  Inscriptions  on 
public  monuments,  generally  contemporary  with  the  events  re- 
corded in  them;  and  (2)  Books,  the  works  of  ancient  or  modem 
writers  on  the  subject. 

Whether  Inscriptions  were,  or  were  not,  the  most  ancient 
kind  of  written  memorial  is  a  point  that  can  never  be  deter- 
mined. What  is  certain  is,  that  the  nations  of  antiquity  made 
use  to  a  very  large  extent  of  this  mode  of  commemorating 
events.  In  Egypt,  in  Assyria,  in  Babylonia,  in  Armenia,  in 
Persia,  in  Phoenicia,  in  Lycia,  in  Greece,  in  Italy,  historical 
events  of  importance  were  from  time  to  time  recorded  in  this 
way — sometimes  on  the  natural  rock,  which  was  commonly 
smoothed  for  the  purpose;  sometimes  on  obelisks  or  pillars; 
frequently  upon  the  walls  of  temples,  palaces,  and  tombs;  oc- 
casionally upon  metal  plates,  or  upon  tablets  and  cylinders  of 
fine  clay — hard  and  durable  materials  all  of  them,  capable  of 


lasting  hundreds  or  even  thousands  of  years,  and  in  many  cases 
continuing  to  the  present  day.  The  practice  prevailed,  as  it 
seems,  most  widely  in  Assyria  and  in  Egypt;  it  was  also  in 
considerable  favor  in  Persia  and  among  the  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans. The  other  nations  used  it  more  sparingly.  It  was  said 
about  half  a  century  ago  that  "  of  the  great  mass  of  inscriptions 
still  extant,  but  few  comparatively  are  of  any  importance  as 
regards  history."  But  this  statement,  if  true  when  it  was  made, 
which  may  be  doubted,  at  any  rate  requires  modification  now. 
The  histories  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  have  been  in  a  great  meas- 
ure reconstructed  from  the  inscriptions  of  the  two  countries. 
The  great  inscription  of  Behistun  has  thrown  much  light  upon 
the  early  history  of  Persia.  That  on  the  Delphic  tripod  has 
illustrated  the  most  glorious  period  of  Greece.  It  is  now  gen- 
erally felt  that  inscriptions  are  among  the  most  important  of 
ancient  records,  and  that  their  intrinsic  value  makes  up  to  a 
great  extent  for  their  comparative  scantiness. 

General  collections  of  ancient  inscriptions  do  not  as  yet  exist.  But 
the  following,  which  have  more  or  less  of  a  general  character,  may 
be  here  mentioned: 

Muratori,  Lud.  Ant.,  "  Novus  Thesaurus  Veterum  Inscriptionum." 
Mediolani,  1739,  etc.  Together  with  Donati,  "  Supplementa." 
Luccae,  1764. 

Gruter,  "  Inscriptiones  antiquse  totius  orbis  Romani,"  cura  J.  G. 
Graevii.    Amstel.  1707;  4  vols.,  folio. 

Pococke,  R.,  "  Inscriptionum  antiquarum  Graecarum  et  Latinarum 
liber."     Londini,  1752;    folio. 

Chandler,  R.,  "  Inscriptiones  antiquae  pleraeque  nondum  editae."  Ox- 
onii,  1774;   folio. 

Osann,  Fr.,  "  Sylloge  Inscriptionum  antiquarum  Graecarum  et  Lat- 
inarum."   Lipsiae,  1834;    folio. 

A  large  number  of  cuneiform  inscriptions,  Assyrian,  Babylonian, 
and  Persian,  will  be  found  in  the  "  Expedition  Scientifique  en  Meso- 
potamie  "  of  M.  Jules  Oppert.  Paris,  1858.  The  Persian,  Babylonian, 
and  Scythian  or  Turanian  transcripts  of  the  great  Behistun  Inscription 
are  contained  in  the  "  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society,"  vols,  x.,  xiv.,  and 
XV.,  to  which  they  were  contributed  by  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  and  Mr. 
Norris.  A  small  but  valuable  collection  of  inscriptions,  chiefly  cunei- 
form, is  appended  to  Mr.  Rich's  "  Narrative  of  a  Journey  from  Bussora 
to  Persepolis."     London,  1839. 

Under  the  head  of  Inscribed  Monuments  must  be  included 
Coins,  which  have  in  most  instances  a  legend,  or  legends,  and 


which  often  throw  considerable  light  upon  obscure  points  of 
history.  The  importance  of  coins  is  no  doubt  the  greatest  in 
those  portions  of  ancient  history  where  the  information  de- 
rivable from  authors — especially  from  contemporary  authors — 
is  the  scantiest;  their  use,  however,  is  not  limited  to  such  por- 
tions, but  extends  over  as  much  of  the  historical  field  as  admits 
of  numismatic  illustration. 

Collections  of  ancient  coins  exist  in  most  museums  and  in  many 
libraries.  The  collection  of  the  British  Museum  is  among  the  best  in 
the  worid.  The  Bodleian  Library  has  a  good  collection;  and  there 
is  one  in  the  library  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  possessing  many  points 
of  interest.  In  default  of  access  to  a  good  collection,  or  in  further 
prosecution  of  numismatic  study,  the  learner  may  consult  the  following 
comprehensive  works: 

Spanheim,  "  Dissertatio  de  usu  et  praestantia  Numismatum."  Lon- 
don and  Amsterdam,  1706-17;   2  vols.,  folio. 

Eckhel,  "  De  Doctrina  Nummorum  Veterum."  Vindebonae,  1792-98; 
8  vols.,  4to. 

Mionnet,  "  Description  des  Medailles."  Paris,  1806-37;  16  vols., 
8vo,  copiously  illustrated. 

Humphreys,  "  Ancient  Coins  and  Medals."  London,  1850.  In  this 
work,  by  means  of  embossed  plates,  fac-similes  of  the  obverse  and  re- 
verse of  many  coins  are  produced. 

Leake,  "  Numismata  Hellenica."     London,  1854. 

Works  upon  coins,  embracing  comparatively  narrow  fields,  are  nu- 
merous, and  often  specially  valuable.  Many  such  works  will  be  no- 
ticed among  the  sources  for  the  history  of  particular  times  and  nations. 

The  "  Books  "  from  which  ancient  history  may  be  learned 
are  of  two  kinds — Ancient  and  Modem.  Ancient  works 
which  treat  the  subject  in  a  general  way  are  neither  numerous 
nor  (with  one  exception)  very  valuable.  The  chief  of  those 
now  extant  are: 

Diodorus  Siculus,  "  Bibliotheca  Historica,"  in  forty  books,  of  which 
only  books  i.-v.  inch  and  xi.-xx.  incl.  have  come  down  to  us  entire. 
The  best  editions  are  those  of  Wesseling  (Bipont.  1793-1800;  10  vols., 
8vo)  and  Dindorf  (Parisiis,  1843-44;  2  vols.,  8vo).  This  work  was  a 
universal  history  from  the  earliest  times  down  to  B.C.  60. 

Polybius,  "  Historiae,"  likewise  in  forty  books,  of  which  the  first  five 
only  are  complete.  Originally,  a  universal  history  of  the  period  com- 
mencing B.C.  220  and  terminating  B.C.  146.  Bad  in  style,  but  excellent 
in  criticism  and  accuracy.    The  best  edition  is  Schweighaeuser's  (Lips. 


1789  et  seqq.;  8  vols.,  8vo.  Reprinted  at  Oxford,  1823,  together  with 
the  same  scholar's  "  Lexicon  Polybianum,"  in  5  vols.,  8vo).  A  good 
edition  of  the  mere  text  has  been  published  by  Didot,  Paris,  1859. 

Justinus,  "  Historiae  Philippicas,"  in  forty-four  books,  extracted,  or 
rather  abbreviated,  from  Trogus  Pompeius,  a  writer  of  the  Augustan 
age.  This  is  a.  universal  history  from  the  earliest  times  to  Augustus 
Caesar.  It  is  a  short  work,  and  consequently  very  slight  and  sketchy. 
Of  recent  editions,  the  best  is  that  of  Duebner  (Lips.  1831).  The  best 
of  the  old  editions  is  that  of  Strasburg,  1802,  8vo. 

Zonaras,  "  Chronicon  sive  Annales,"  in  twelve  books.  A  universal 
history,  extending  from  the  Creation  to  the  death  of  the  Emperor 
Maximin,  a.d.  238.  Greatly  wanting  in  criticism.  The  best  edition  is 
that  in  the  "  Corpus  Scriptorum  Historiae  Byzantinse."  Bonnae, 

Besides  these,  there  remain  fragments  from  the  universal  history  of 
Nicolaus  Damascenus  ("  Fragm.  Hist.  Graec,"  Vol.  IIL,  ed.  C.  Miiller, 
Parisiis,  1849),  which  are  of  very  considerable  value. 

Modern  works  embracing  the  whole  range  of  ancient  his- 
tory are  numerous  and  important.  They  may  be  divided  into 
two  classes:  Works  on  Universal  History,  of  which  Ancient 
History  forms  only  a  part;  Works  exclusively  devoted  to  An- 
cient History. 

To  the  first  class  belong: 

"  The  Universal  History,  Ancient  and  Modern,"  with  maps  and  ad- 
ditions. London,  1736-44;  7  vols.,  folio.  Reprinted  in  8vo  and  64 
vols.,  London,  1747-66;  again,  in  60  vols.,  with  omissions  and  additions. 

Raleigh,  Sir  W.,  "  History  of  the  World,"  in  his  "  Works."  Oxford, 
Clarendon  Press,  1829;    8  vols.,  8vo. 

Bossuet,  "  Discours  sur  I'Histoire  Universelle."  Paris,  1681;  4to. 
(Translated  into  English  by  Rich.  Spencer.     London,  1730;    8vo.) 

Millot,  "  Elemens  de  I'Histoire  Generale."  Paris,  1772  et  seqq.  Re- 
printed at  Edinburgh,  1823;  6  vols.,  8vo.  (Translated  into  English, 
1778;   2  vols.,  8vo.) 

Eichhorn,  "  Weltgeschichte."    Leipsic,  1799-1820;   5  vols.,  8vo. 

Keightley,  Th.,  "  Outlines  of  History,"  8vo,  being  vol.  ix.  of  Lard- 
ner's  "  Cabinet  Cyclopaedia."  London,  1835  et  seqq.  A  convenient 

Tytler  and  Nares,  "  Elements  of  General  History."  London,  1825. 
"  Owes  its  reputation  and  success  to  the  want  of  a  better  work  on  the 

Under  the  second  head  may  be  mentioned: 

Niebuhr,  B.  G.,  "  Vortrage  uber  alte  Geschichte."  Berlin,  1847;  3 
vols.,  8vo.  Edited  after  his  death  by  his  son,  Marcus  Niebuhr.  (Trans- 
lated into  English  by  Dr.  Leonard  Schmitz,  with  additions  and  cor- 


rcctions.  London,  1852;  3  vols.,  8vo.)  A  work  of  the  highest  value, 
embodying  all  the  results  of  modern  discovery  up  to  about  the  year  1830. 

Schlosser,  "  Universal-historische  Uebersicht  der  Geschichte  der 
alten  Welt"    Frankfort,  1826;  3  vols.,  8vo. 

Bredow,  "  Handbuch  der  alte  Geschichte."  Altona,  1799;  8vo. 
(Translated  into  English.     London,  1827;  8vo.) 

Smith,  Philip,  *'  An  Ancient  History  from  the  Elarliest  Records  to 
the  Fall  of  the  Western  Empire."  London,  1865;  3  vols.,  8vo.  Em- 
bodies the  latest  results  of  modern  discovery. 

Heeren,  "  Ideen  iiber  die  Politik,  den  Verkehr,  und  den  Handel  der 
vomehmsten  Volker  der  alten  Welt "  ;  4th  edition.  Gottingen,  1824. 
(Translated  into  English.  Oxford,  1833  et  seqq.;  5  vols.,  8vo.)  A 
work  which,  so  far  as  the  commerce  of  the  ancients  is  concerned,  has 
not  been  superseded. 

A  few  modem  works  of  a  less  comprehensive  character  than 
those  hitherto  described,  but  still  belonging  rather  to  general 
than  to  particular  history,  seem  also  to  deserve  mention  here. 
Such  are : 

Rollin,  "  Histoire  Ancienne  des  Egyptiens,  des  Carthaginiens,  des 
Assyriens,  des  Medes  et  des  Perses,  des  Macedoniens,  et  des  Grecs." 
Paris,  1824;  12  vols.,  8vo,  revue  par  Letronne.  "The  last  and  best 
edition."  (Translated  into  English.  London,  1768;  7  vols..  8vo.)  The 
earlier  portion  of  this  work  is  now  antiquated,  and  must  be  replaced 
by  writers  who  have  had  the  advantage  of  recent  discoveries. 

Rawlinson,  G.,  "  The  Five  Great  Monarchies  of  the  Ancient  Eastern 
World,  or  the  History,  Geography,  and  Antiquities  of  Chaldsea,  As- 
syria, Babylonia,  Media,  and  Persia."  London,  1862-67;  4  vols.,  8vo. 
With  numerous  illustrations. 

The  fact  that  all  historical  events  must  occur  at  a  certain 
time  and  in  a  certain  place  attaches  to  History  two  branches 
of  knowledge  as  indispensable  auxiliaries;  viz.,  (Thronology 
and  Geography.  By  the  universal  historian  these  sciences 
should  be  known  completely:  and  a  fair  knowledge  of  them 
ought  to  be  acquired  by  every  historical  student.  A  fixed 
mode  of  computing  time,  and  an  exact  or  approximate  reckon- 
ing of  the  period  occupied  by  the  events  narrated,  is  essential 
to  every  methodized  history;  nor  can  any  history  be  regarded 
as  complete  without  a  more  or  less  elaborate  description  of 
the  countries  which  were  the  theatres  of  the  events  recorded 
in  it. 

Exact  Chronology  is  difficult,  and  a  synchronistic  view  of 


history  generally  is  impossible  without  the  adoption  of  an  era. 
Nations  accordingly,  as  the  desire  of  exactness  or  the  wish  to 
synchronize  arose,  invented  eras  for  themselves,  which  gen- 
erally remained  in  use  for  many  hundreds  of  years.  The  earliest 
known  instance  of  the  formal  assumption  of  a  fixed  point  in 
time  from  which  to  date  events  belongs  to  the  history  of  Baby- 
lon, where  the  era  of  Nabonassar,  B.C.  747,  appears  to  have 
been  practically  in  use  from  that  year.  The  era  of  the  founda- 
tion of  Rome,  B.C.  752  (according  to  the  best  authorities), 
was  certainly  not  adopted  by  the  Romans  till  after  the  expulsion 
of  the  kings;  nor  did  that  of  the  Olympiads,  B.C.  776,  become 
current  in  Greece  until  the  time  of  Timaeus  (about  B.C.  300). 
The  Asiatic  Greeks,  soon  after  the  death  of  Alexander,  adopted 
the  era  of  the  Seleucidae,  B.C.  312.  The  era  of  Antioch,  B.C. 
49,  was  also  commonly  used  in  the  East  from  that  date  till  A.D. 
600.  The  Armenian  era,  A.D.  553,  and  the  Mohammedan, 
A.D.  622  (the  Hegira),  are  likewise  worthy  of  notice. 

The  most  important  chronological  monuments  are  the  fol- 

The  Assyrian  Canon  (discovered  by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  among  the 
antiquities  in  the  British  Museum,  and  published  by  him  in  the  Athe- 
tueum,  Nos.  1812  and  2064),  an  account  of  Assyrian  chronology  from 
about  B.C.  909  to  B.C.  680,  impressed  on  a  number  of  clay  tablets  in  the 
reign  of  Sardanapalus,  the  son  of  Esarhaddon,  all  now  more  or  less 
broken,  but  supplying  each  other's  deficiencies,  and  yielding  by  careful 
comparison  a  complete  chronological  scheme,  covering  a  space  of  230 
years.  The  chronology  of  the  whole  period  is  verified  by  a  recorded 
solar  eclipse,  which  is  evidently  that  of  June  15,  B.C.  763. 

The  Apis  Stelas  (discovered  by  M.  Mariette,  close  to  the  Pyramid  of 
Abooseer,  near  Cairo),  published  in  the  "  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  Kunde  des 
Morgenlandes  "  for  1864,  and  also  by  M.  de  Rouge  in  his  "  Recherches 
sur  les  monuments  qu'on  pent  attribuer  aux  six  premieres  Dynasties 
de  Manethon."    Paris,  1866.    Most  important  for  Egyptian  chronology. 

The  Parian  Marble  (brought  to  England  from  Smyrna  in  the  year 
1627  by  an  agent  of  the  Earl  of  Arundel,  and  presented  to  the  University 
of  Oxford  by  his  son;  preserved  among  the  "Arundel  Marbles"  in 
the  "  Schola  Philosophise  Moralis,"  but  in  a  very  decayed  condition), 
a  chronological  arrangement  of  important  events  in  Greek  history  from 
the  accession  of  Cecrops  to  the  archonship  of  Callistratus,  B.C.  355. 
Best  editions:  "  Marmora  Arundeliana,"  ed.  J.  Selden.  Londini,  1628. 
"Marmora  Oxoniensia,"  ed.  R.  Chandler.  Oxoniis,  1763;  folio. 
"  Marmor  Parium,"  ed.  C.  Miiller,  in  Vol.  I.  of  the  "  Fragmenta  His- 


toricum  Graecorum."    Parisiis,  1846.    The  inscription  is  also  given  in 
Boeckh's  Cort>us  Inscriptiottum  Gracarum,  Vol.  II.,  No.  2374. 

The  Fasti  Capitolini  (discovered  at  Rome  on  the  site  of  the  ancient 
Forum,  partly  in  the  year  1547,  partly  in  181 7  and  1818,  and  still  pre- 
served in  the  Museum  of  the  Capitol),  a  list  of  the  Roman  magistrates 
and  triumphs  from  the  commencement  of  the  Republic  to  the  end  of 
the  reign  of  Augustus.  Best  edition  of  the  fragments  discovered  in 
1547,  the  second  of  Sigonius,  Venet.  1556.  Best  edition  of  the  frag- 
ments of  1817-18,  that  of  Borghcsi,  Milan,  1818.  These  Fasti  are  re- 
produced in  appendices  to  the  first  and  second  volumes  of  Dr.  Arnold's 
"  History  of  Rome,"  down  to  the  close  of  the  first  Punic  War.  An 
excellent  reprint  and  arrangement  of  the  fragments  will  be  found  in 
Mommsen's  "  Inscriptiones  Latinae  Antiquissimae."     Berlin,   1863. 

Ancient  works  on  Chronology  were  numerous;  but  not  many 
have  come  down  to  our  times.  The  subject  first  began  to  be 
treated  as  a  science  by  the  Alexandrians  in  the  third  century 
before  Christ.  Eratosthenes,  ApoUodorus,  Sosicrates,  and 
others  undertook  the  task  of  arranging  the  events  of  past  his- 
tory according  to  exact  chronological  schemes,  which  were 
no  doubt  sufficiently  arbitrary.  These  writers  were  succeeded 
by  Castor  (about  B.C.  100-50),  Cephalion,  Julius  Africanus 
(A.D.  200),  and  Hippolytus,  of  whom  the  last  two  were  Chris- 
tians. The  earliest  work  of  a  purely  chronological  character 
which  has  come  down  to  us  is  the  following: 

Eusebius  Pamphili,  "  Chronicorum  Canonum  libri  duo,"  The 
Greek  text  is  lost;  but  the  latter  book  has  been  preserved  to  us  in  the 
Latin  translation  of  Jerome;  and  the  greater  part  of  both  books  exists 
in  an  Armenian  version,  which  has  been  rendered  into  Latin  by  the 
Armenian  monk,  Zohrab,  assisted  by  Cardinal  Mai.  (Mediolani,  1818; 

Other  chronological  works  of  importance  are: 

Georgius  Syncellus,  "  Chronographia,"  in  the  "  Corpus  HisL  By- 
zant.,"  ed.  Dindorf.    Bonnae,  1829;   2  vols.,  8vo. 

Johannes  Malalas,  "  Chronographia,"  in  the  same  collection,  ed. 
Dindorf.     Bonnx,  1831;    8vo. 

"  Chronicon  Paschale,"  in  the  same  collection.  Bonnae,  1832;  2 
vols.,  8vo. 

Scaliger,  Jos.,  "  De  Emendatione  Temporum."    Genevae,  1629. 

Ideler,  *'  Handbuch  der  Chronologic."    Berlin.  1825-26;  2  vols.,  8vo. 

"  L'Art  de  Verifier  les  Dates."    Paris,  1819-44;  36  vols.,  8vo. 

Hales,  W.,  '*  New  Analysis  of  Chronology,  explaining  the  History 
and  Antiquities  of  the   Primitive  Nations  of  the  World."     London, 


1809-12;   3  vols.,  4to.    New  edition,  corrected  and  improved,  1830;   4 
vols.,  Svo. 

Clinton,  H.  F.,  "  Fasti  Hellenic! ;  or.  The  Civil  and  Literary  Chronol- 
ogy of  Greece  from  the  Fifty-fifth  Olympiad  to  the  Death  of  Augustus." 
Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1827-30;  3  vols.,  4to.  A  valuable  work,  not 
confined  to  the  chronology  of  Greece,  but  embracing  that  of  all  the 
Asiatic  kingdoms  and  empires  from  the  earliest  times  to  Alexander's 
conquest  of  Persia. 

Geography,  the  other  ancillary  science  to  History,  was 
recognized  from  a  very  early  date  as  closely  connected  v^ith  it. 
The  History  of  Herodotus  is  almost  as  much  geographical  as 
historical:  and  the  geographical  element  occupies  a  consider- 
able space  in  the  histories  of  many  other  ancient  writers,  as 
notably  Polybius  and  Diodorus.  At  the  same  time  the  sepa- 
rability of  geography,  and  its  claims  to  be  regarded  as  a  distinct 
branch  of  knowledge,  were  perceived  almost  from  the  first; 
and  works  upon  it,  whereof  only  fragments  remain,  were  written 
by  HecatJEUs  of  Miletus,  Scylax  of  Caryanda,  Charon  of  Lamp- 
sacus,  Damastes,  Eratosthenes,  Agatharchides,  Scymnus  of 
Chios,  and  others.  The  most  important  of  the  extant  classical 
works  on  the  subject  are: 

The  "  Periplus  Maris  Mediterranei,"  ascribed  to  Scylax  of  Caryanda, 
but  really  the  work  of  an  unknown  writer  belonging  to  the  time  of 
Philip  of  Macedon.  Ed.  D.  Hoeschel,  August.  Vind.,  1608.  Printed 
also  in  Hudson's  "  Geographi  Minores,"  Oxoniis,  1703;  and  in  C. 
Miiller's  "  Geographi  Graeci  Minores."    Paris,  1855. 

Strabo,  "  Geographica,"  in  seventeen  books,  the  most  important  an- 
cient work  on  the  subject.  Best  editions:  that  of  Is.  Casaubon,  Parisiis, 
1620,  folio;  that  of  Th.  Falconer,  Oxoniis,  1807,  2  vols.,  folio;  that  of 
Siebenkees,  Lipsiae,  1796-1811,  6  vols.,  8vo;  and  that  of  Kramer,  Bero- 
lini,  1847-52,  3  vols.,  8vo. 

Dionysius,  "  Periegesis,"  written  in  hexameter  verse.  Published, 
with  the  commentary  of  Eustathius,  by  H.  Stephanus.  Parisiis,  1577. 
It  will  be  found  also  in  the  "  Geographi  Graeci  Minores  "  of  Bernhardy 
(Leipsic,  1828)  and  of  C.  Miiller. 

Plinius,  "  Historia  Naturalis,"  in  thirty-seven  books.  Best  edition, 
that  of  Sillig.    Gotha:;  8  vols.,  8vo. 

Ptolemaeus,  "  Geographia,"  in  eight  books.  Ed.  Bertius,  Amstel., 
1618;   folio. 

Pomponius  Mela,  "  Cosmographia,  sive  De  Situ  Orbis,"  in  three 
books.  Edited  by  H.  Stephanus,  together  with  the  "  Periegesis  "  of 
Dionysius.  Parisiis,  1577.  Best  edition,  that  of  Tzschucke.  Lipsae, 
1807;    7  vols.,  Svo. 


And  for  the  geography  of  Greece: 

Paasanias,  "  Pericgesis  Helladis,"  in  ten  books.  Best  editions:  that 
of  Sicbelis,  Lipsiae,  1822-28.  5  vols.,  8vo;  and  that  of  Bekker,  Berlin, 
1826-27,  2  vols.,  8vo. 

Modem  works  on  the  subject  of  Ancient  Geography  are 
numerous,  but  only  a  few  are  of  a  general  character.  Among 
these  may  be  noticed: 

Cellarius,  "  Notitia  Orbis  Antiqui."  Lipsiae,  1701-06;  2  vols.,  4to. 
"  Cum  observationibus,"  J.  C.  Schwartzii.    Lipsiae,  1771  and  1773. 

Mannert,  "  Geographie  der  Griechen  und  Romer."  Ntirnberg,  1801- 
31 ;    10  vols.,  8vo. 

Gosselin,  "  Recherches  sur  la  Geographie  systematique  et  positive 
des  Anciens."    Paris,  1798-1813;   4  vols.,  4to. 

Rennell,  J.,  "  Geography  of  Herodotus."  London,  1800;  4to.  And 
the  same  writer's  "  Treatise  on  the  Comparative  Geography  of  Asia 
Minor,"  with  an  Atlas.     London,  1831;   2  vols.,  8vo. 

Ritter,  *'  Erdkunde."  Berlin,  1832  et  seqq.  A  most  copious  and 
learned  work,  embracing  all  the  results  of  modern  discovery  up  to  the 
date  of  the  publication  of  each  volume. 

Smith,  Dr.  W.,  "  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Geogfraphy."  Lon- 
don, 1854;    2  vols.,  8vo. 

Among  useful  compendiums  are — 

Laurent,  P.  E.,  "  Introduction  to  Ancient  Geography."  Oxford, 
1813;   8vo. 

Arrowsmith.  A.,  "  Compendium  of  Ancient  and  Modem  Geography, 
for  the  use  of  Eton  School."    London,  1830;  8vo. 

The  best  Atlases  illustrative  of  Ancient  Geography  are  the 

Kiepert,  "  Atlas  von  Hellas,"  with  supplementary  maps.  Berlin, 
1846-51.    Also  the  same  geographer's  "  Atlas  Antiquus."    Berlin,  1861. 

Miiller.  C,  Maps  accompanying  the  "  Geographi  Graeci  Minores." 
Paris,  1855. 

Johnston,  A.  Keith,  "  Atlas  of  Qassical  Geography."  Edinburgh, 
1866;    4to. 

Smith,  Dr.  W.,  "  Biblical  and  Qassical  Atlas."  London,  1868;  small 

The  field  of  Ancient  History  may  be  mapped  out  either  syn- 
chronistically, according  to  certain   periods  and  epochs,  or 


ethnographically,  according  to  states  and  nations.  Neither  of 
these  two  methods  is  absokitely  superior  to  the  other,  each 
having  merits  in  which  the  other  is  deficient.  It  would  be 
embarrassing  to  have  to  choose  between  them ;  but,  fortunately, 
this  difficulty  is  obviated  by  the  possibility  of  combining  the 
two  into  one  system.  This  combined  method,  which  has  been 
already  preferred  as  most  convenient  by  other  writers  of 
Manuals,  will  be  adopted  in  the  ensuing  pages,  where  the 
general  division  of  the  subject  will  be  as  follows: 

Book  I. — History  of  the  Ancient  Asiatic  and  African  States 
and  Kingdoms  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Foundation  of 
the  Persian  Monarchy  by  Cyrus  the  Great,  B.C.  558. 

Book  II. — History  of  the  Persian  Monarchy  from  the  Acces- 
sion of  Cyrus  to  the  Death  of  Darius  Codomannus,  B.C. 

Book  III. — History  of  the  Grecian  States,  both  in  Greece 
Proper  and  elsewhere,  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Acces- 
sion of  Alexander,  B.C.  336. 

Book  IV. — History  of  the  Macedonian  Monarchy,  and  the 
Kingdoms  into  which  it  broke  up,  until  their  absorption  into 
the  Roman  Empire. 

Book  V. — History  of  Rome  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the 
Fall  of  the  Western  Empire,  A.D.  476,  and  Parallel  History 
of  Parthia. 








Asia  is  the  largest  of  the  three  great  divisions  of  the  Eastern 
Hemisphere.  Regfarding  it  as  separated  from  Africa  by  the 
Red  Sea  and  Isthmus  of  Suez,  and  from  Europe  by  the  Ural 
Mountains,  the  Ural  River,  the  Caspian  Sea,  and  the  main 
chain  of  the  Caucasus,  its  superficial  contents  will  amount  to 
17,500,000  square  miles,  whereas  those  of  Africa  are  less  than 
12,000,000,  and  those  of  Europe  do  not  exceed  3,800,000.  In 
climate  it  unites  greater  varieties  than  either  of  the  two  other 
divisions,  extending  as  it  does  from  the  78th  degree  of  north 
latitude  to  within  a  hundred  miles  of  the  equator.  It  thus  lies 
mainly  within  the  northern  temperate  zone,  but  projects  north- 
ward a  distance  of  eleven  degrees  beyond  the  Arctic  circle, 
while  southward  it  throws  into  the  region  of  the  Tropics  three 
long  and  broad  peninsulas. 

Asia  consists  mainly  of  a  g^eat  central  table-land,  running 
east  and  west  from  the  neighborhood  oi  the  Mgean  to  the 
north-western  frontier  of  China,  with  low  plains  surrounding 
it,  which  are  for  the  most  part  fertile  and  well  watered.  The 
high  table-land  is  generally  bounded  by  mountain-chains, 
which  mostly  run  parallel  to  it  in  latitudinal  lines.  In  places 
these  primary  latitudinal  chains  give  way  to  others,  which  run 
in  an  opposite  or  longitudinal  direction. 



The  Rivers  of  Asia  may  be  divided  into  two  classes — ^those 
of  the  central  tract,  and  those  of  the  circumjacent  regions.  The 
rivers  of  the  central  tract  are  continental  or  mediterranean; 
i.e.,  they  begin  and  end  without  reaching  the  sea.  Either  they 
form  after  a  while  salt  lakes  in  which  their  waters  are  evap- 
orated, or  they  gradually  waste  away  and  lose  themselves  in 
the  sands  of  deserts.  The  rivers  of  the  circumjacent  plains  are, 
on  the  contrary,  oceanic ;  i.e.,  they  mingle  themselves  with  the 
waters  of  the  great  deep. 

Asia  may  conveniently  be  divided  into  Northern,  Central, 
and  Southern,  the  Southern  region  being  again  subdivided  into 
a  Western  and  an  Eastern  portion.  It  is  with  South-western 
Asia  that  Ancient  History  is  almost  exclusively  concerned. 

Northern  Asia,  or  the  tract  lying  north  of  the  Caspian  Sea, 
the  Jaxartes,  and  the  Altai  mountain-chain,  is  for  the  most 
part  a  great  grassy  plain,  of  low  elevation,  destitute  of  trees, 
and  unproductive,  the  layer  of  vegetable  soil  being  thin.  To- 
wards the  north  this  plain  merges  into  vast  frozen  wilds  capable 
of  nourishing  only  a  few  hunters.  In  the  west  the  Ural  and 
Altai,  in  the  east  the  Jablonnoi,  and  their  offshoot  the  Tukulan, 
are  the  only  mountains.  The  rivers  are  numerous,  and  abound 
in  fish.  The  Ural  and  Altai  chains  are  rich  in  valuable  min- 
erals, as  gold,  silver,  platina,  copper,  and  iron.  This  region 
was  almost  unknown  to  the  ancients,  who  included  it  under 
the  vague  name  of  Scythia.  Some  scanty  notices  of  it  occur, 
however,  in  Herodotus. 

Central  Asia,  or  the  region  bounded  on  the  north  by  the 
Altai,  on  the  west  by  the  Caspian,  on  the  south  by  the  Elburz, 
the  Hindu  Kush,  and  the  Himalaya,  on  the  east  by  the  Yun- 
ling  and  other  Chinese  ranges,  consists,  excepting  in  its  more 
western  portion,  of  an  elevated  plateau  or  table-land,  which 
towards  the  south  is  not  less  than  10,000  feet,  and  towards 
the  north  is  from  4,000  to  2,600  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea. 
This  plateau  is  intersected  by  the  two  great  chains  of  the  Thian- 
chan  and  the  Kuen-lun,  and  otherwise  diversified  by  impor- 
tant ridges.  Towards  the  north  the  soil  admits  of  pasturage, 
and  in  the  west  and  south  are  some  rich  plains  and  valleys; 
but  the  greater  part  of  the  region  consists  of  sandy  deserts. 
Outside  the  western  boundary  of  the  plateau,  which  is  formed 


by  the  Bolor  and  other  "  longitudinal "  chains,  a  low  plain 
succeeds,  a  continuation  of  the  Siberian  steppe,  which  consists 
also,  in  the  main,  of  sandy  desert,  excepting  along  the  courses 
of  the  streams. 

A  small  portion  only  of  Central  Asia — lying  towards  the  west 
and  the  south-west — was  known  to  the  ancients.  In  the  low 
region  between  the  Elburz  range  and  the  Siberian  steppe,  upon 
the  courses  of  the  two  gfreat  streams  which  flow  down  from 
the  plateau,  were  three  countries  of  some  importance.  These 
were — 

Chorasmia,  to  the  extreme  west,  between  the  Caspian  and 
the  lower  Oxus — a  desolate  region,  excepting  close  along  the 
river-bank,  known  still  as  Kharesm,  and  forming  part  of  the 
Khanat  of  Khiva. 

Sogdiana,  between  the  lower  Oxus  and  the  lower  Jaxartes, 
resembling  Chorasmia  in  its  western  portion,  but  towards  the 
east  traversed  by  spurs  of  the  Bolor  and  the  Thian-chan,  and 
watered  by  numerous  streams  descending  from  them.  The 
chief  of  these  was  the  Polytimctus  of  the  Greeks,  on  which 
was  Maracanda  (Samarkand),  the  capital. 

Bactria,  on  the  upper  Oxus,  between  Sogdiana  and  the 
Paropamisus  (Hindu  Kush).  Mountainous,  fertile,  and  well 
watered  towards  the  east,  but  towards  the  west  descending  into 
the  desert.  Chief  cities,  Bactra  (Balkh),  the  capital,  a  little 
south  of  the  Oxus,  and  Margus  (Merv),  on  a  stream  of  its  own, 
in  the  western  desert. 

Southern  Asia,  according  to  the  division  of  the  continent 
which  has  been  here  preferred,  comprises  all  the  countries  lying 
north  of  the  Black  Sea,  the  Caucasus,  the  Caspian,  and  the 
Elburz,  Hindu  Kush,  and  Himalaya  ranges,  together  with  those 
lying  east  of  the  Yun-ling,  the  Ala-chan,  and  the  Khing^, 
which  form  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  central  table-land.  A 
line  drawn  along  the  ninety-second  meridian  (E.  from  Green- 
wich) will  separate  this  tract,  at  the  point  where  it  is  narrowest, 
into  an  Eastern  and  Western  region,  the  former  containing 
Manchuria,  China,  and  the  Siamo-Burmese  peninsula,  the  lat- 
ter Hindustan,  Affghanistan,  Beluchistan,  Persia,  the  Russian 
Transcaucasian  provinces,  Turkey  in  Asia,  and  Arabia.  With 
the  Eastern  region  Ancient  History  has  no  concern  at  all,  since 


it  was  unknown  to  the  great  nations  of  antiquity,  and  whatever 
history  it  has  belongs  to  the  Modern  rather  than  to  the  Ancient 
period.  With  the  Western  region  Ancient  History  is,  on  the 
contrary,  concerned  vitally  and  essentially,  since  this  region 
formed  in -the  early  times,  if  not  the  sole,  yet  at  any  rate  the 
chief,  stage  on  which  the  historical  drama  was  exhibited. 

South-western  Asia  is  naturally  divisible  into  four  main 
regions — viz.,  Asia  Minor,  or  the  peninsula  of  Anatolia;  the 
adjoining  table-land,  or  the  tract  which  lies  between  Asia  Minor 
and  the  Valley  of  the  Indus;  the  lowland  south  of  this  table- 
land, which  stretches  from  the  base  of  the  mountains  to  the 
shores  of  the  Indian  Ocean;  and  the  Indian  Peninsula. 

Asia  Minor  consists  of  a  central  table-land,  of  moderate 
elevation,  lying  between  the  two  parallel  chains  of  Taurus  and 
Olympus,  together  with  three  coast-tracts,  situated  respectively 
north,  west,  and  south  of  the  plateau.  Its  chief  rivers  are  the 
Iris  (Yechil  Irmak),  the  Halys  (Kizil  Irmak),  and  the  Sangarius 
''Sakkariyeh),  which  all  fall  into  the  Euxine,  Its  loftiest  moun- 
tain is  Argaeus,  near  Caesarsea  (Kaisariyeh),  which  attains  an 
altitude  of  13,000  feet.  On  the  highest  part  of  the  plateau, 
which  is  towards  the  south,  adjoining  Taurus,  are  a  number 
of  salt  lakes,  into  which  the  rivers  of  this  region  empty  them- 
selves. The  largest  is  the  Palus  Tattseus  (Touz  Ghieul),  which 
extends  about  forty-five  miles  in  its  greatest  length.  Asia 
Minor  contained  in  the  times  anterior  to  Cyrus  the  following 
countries: — On  the  plateau,  two:  Phrygia  and  Cappadocia; 
boundary  between  them,  the  Halys.  In  the  northern  coast- 
tract,  two:  Paphlagonia  and  Bithynia;  boundary,  the  Billseus 
(Filiyas).  In  the  western  coast-tract,  three:  Mysia,  Lydia, 
and  Caria,  with  the  ^olian,  Ionian,  and  Dorian  Greeks  occupy- 
ing most  of  the  sea-board.  In  the  southern  coast-tract,  three : 
Lycia,  Pamphylia,  and  Cilicia.  The  chief  cities  were  Sardis, 
the  capital  of  Lydia;  Dascyleium,  of  Bithynia;  Gordium,  of 
Phrygia;  Xanthus,  of  Lycia;  Tarsus,  of  CiHcia;  and  Mazaca 
(afterwards  Caesaraea),  of  Cappadocia ;  together  with  the  Gre- 
cian settlements  of  Miletus,  Phocaea,  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  Hali- 
camassus,  and  Cnidus  on  the  west,  and  Cyzicus,  Heraclea, 
Sinope,  Amisus,  Cerasus,  and  Trapezus  upon  the  north. 

Islands.    The  littoral  islands  belonging  to  Asia  Minor  were 


important  and  numerous.  The  principal  were  Proconnesus  in 
the  Propontis;  Tenedos,  Lesbos  (capital  Mytilene),  Chios, 
Samos,  and  Rhodes,  in  the  JEgean;  and  Cyprus  in  the  Levant 
or  Eastern  Mediterranean.  The  chief  towns  of  Cyprus  were 
Salamis,  Citium,  and  Paphos,  on  the  coast ;  and,  in  the  interior, 

The  great  highland  extending  from  Asia  Minor  in  the  west 
to  the  mountains  which  border  the  Indus  Valley  in  the  east, 
comprised  seventeen  countries — viz.,  Armenia,  Iberia  or  Sape- 
iria,  Colchis,  Matiene,  Media,  Persia,  Mycia,  Sagartia,  Cadusia, 
Hyrcania,  Parthia,  Aria,  Arachosia,  Sattagydia,  Gandaria, 
Sarang^a,  and  Gedrosia  or  the  Eastern  Ethiopia.  As  these 
countries  were  mostly  of  considerable  size  and  importance,  a 
short  description  will  be  given  of  each. 

Armenia  lay  east  of  Cappadocia.  It  was  a  lofty  region, 
consisting  almost  entirely  of  mountains,  and  has  been  well 
called  "  the  Switzerland  of  Western  Asia."  The  mountain 
system  culminates  in  Ararat,  which  has  an  elevation  of  17,000 
feet.  Hence  all  the  great  rivers  of  this  part  of  Asia  take  their 
rise,  viz.,  the  Tigris,  the  Euphrates,  the  Halys,  the  Araxes,  and 
the  Cyrus.  In  the  highest  part  of  the  region  occur  two  elevated 
lake-basins,  those  of  Urumiyeh  and  Van,  each  having  a  distinct 
and  separate  water-system  of  its  own.  The  only  town  an- 
ciently of  much  importance  was  one  which  occupied  the  posi- 
tion of  the  modern  Van,  on  the  east  coast  of  the  lake  of  the 
same  name. 

Iberia,  or  Sapeiria,  adjoined  Armenia  to  the  north-east.  It 
comprised  the  whole  of  the  modern  Georgia,  together  with 
some  parts  of  Russian  and  Turkish  Armenia,  as  especially  the 
region  about  Kars,  Ispir,  and  Akhaltsik.  Its  rivers  were  the 
Cyrus  (Kur)  and  Araxes  (Aras),  which  flow  together  into  the 
Caspian.  It  had  one  lake,  Lake  Goutcha  or  Sivan,  in  the 
mountain  region  north-east  of  Ararat. 

Colchis,  or  the  valley  of  the  Phasis,  between  the  Caucasus 
and  Western  Iberia,  corresponded  to  the  modem  districts  of 
Imeritia,  Mingjelia,  and  Guriel.  Its  chief  importance  lay  in 
its  commanding  one  of  the  main  routes  of  early  commerce, 
which  passed  by  way  of  the  Oxus,  Caspian,  Aras,  and  Phasis 
to  the  Euxine.    (Connect  with  this  the  Argonautic  expedition.) 


Chief  town,  Phasis,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Rion  River,  a  Greek 
settlement.  Natives  of  Colchis,  black:  believed  to  be  Egyp- 

Matiene  was  a  strip  of  mountain  land,  running  southward 
from  Sapeiria,  and  separating  between  Assyria  and  Media 
Magna.  It  early  lost  its  name,  and  was  reckoned  to  one  or 
other  of  the  adjoining  countries. 

Media,  one  of  the  largest  and  most  important  of  the  regions 
belonging  to  this  group,  extended  from  the  Araxes  on  the 
north  to  the  desert  beyond  Isfahan  on  the  south.  Eastward 
it  reached  to  the  Caspian  Gates;  westward  it  was  bounded 
by  Matiene,  or  (when  Matiene  disappeared)  by  Armenia  and 
Assyria.  Its  chief  rivers  were  the  Araxes  (Aras)  and  the 
Mardus  (Kizil  Uzen  or  Sefid-rud).  It  consisted  of  two  re- 
gions, Northern  Media,  or  Media  Atropatene  (Azerbijan),  and 
Southern  Media,  or  Media  Magna.  The  whole  territory  was 
mountainous,  except  towards  the  south-east,  where  it  abutted 
on  the  Sagartian  desert.  The  soil  was  mostly  sterile,  but  some 
tracts  were  fairly,  and  a  few  richly,  productive.  The  chief 
cities  were  Ecbatana  and  Rhages. 

Persia  lay  south  and  south-east  of  Media,  extending  from 
the  Median  frontier  across  the  Zagros  mountain-chain,  to  the 
shores  of  the  gulf  whereto  it  gave  name.  It  was  barren  and 
unfruitful  towards  the  north  and  east,  where  it  ran  into  the 
Sagartian  desert ;  mountainous  and  fairly  fertile  in  the  central 
region ;  and  a  tract  of  arid  sand  along  the  coast.  Its  rivers 
were  few  and  of  small  size.  Two,  the  Oroatis  (Tab)  and  Granis 
(Khisht  river),  flowed  southward  into  the  Persian  Gulf;  one, 
the  Araxes  (Bendamir),  with  its  tributary  the  Cyrus  (Pulwar), 
ran  eastward,  and  terminated  in  a  salt  lake  (Neyriz  or  Bakh- 
tigan).  The  principal  cities  were  Persepolis,  Pasargadae,  and 
Carmana,  which  last  was  the  capital  of  a  district  of  Persia, 
called  Carmania. 

Mycia  was  a  small  tract  south-east  of  Persia,  on  the  shores 
of  the  Persian  Gulf,  opposite  the  island  of  Kishm  and  the  pro- 
montory of  Ras  Mussendum.  It  was  ultimately  absorbed  into 
Persia  Proper. 

Sagartia  was  at  once  the  largest  and  the  most  thinly  peopled 
of  the  plateau  countries.    It  comprised  the  whole  of  the  great 


desert  of  Iran,  which  reaches  from  Kashan  and  Koum  on  the 
west  to  Sarawan  and  Quettah  towards  the  east,  a  distance  of 
above  900  miles.  It  was  bounded  on  the  north  by  Media, 
Parthia,  and  Aria;  on  the  east  by  Sarang^a  and  Sattagydia; 
on  the  south  by  Mycia  and  the  Eastern  Ethiopia ;  on  the  west 
by  Media  and  Persia.  It  contained  in  ancient  times  no  city 
of  importance,  the  inhabitants  being  nomads,  whose  flocks 
found  a  scanty  pasturage  on  the  less  barren  portions  of  the 
great  upland. 

Cadusia,  or  the  country  of  the  Cadusians,  was  a  thin  strip 
of  territory  along  the  south-eastern  and  southern  shores  of  the 
Caspian,  corresponding  to  the  modem  Ghilan  and  Mazande- 
ran.  Strictly  speaking,  it  scarcely  belonged  to  the  plateau, 
since  it  lay  outside  the  Elburz  range,  on  the  northern  slopes 
of  the  chain,  and  between  them  and  the  Caspian  Sea.  It  con- 
tained no  city  of  importance,  but  was  fertile,  well  wooded,  and 
well  watered;    and  sustained  a  numerous  population. 

Hyrcania  lay  east  of  Cadusia,  at  the  south-eastern  corner 
of  the  Caspian,  where  the  name  still  exists  in  the  modern  river 
Gurg^n.  The  chain  of  the  Elburz  here  broadens  out  to  a 
width  of  200  miles,  and  a  fertile  region  is  formed  containing 
many  rich  valleys  and  high  mountain  pastures,  together  with 
some  considerable  plains.  The  chief  city  of  Hyrcania  was 

Parthia  lay  south  and  south-east  of  Hyrcania,  including 
the  sunny  flank  of  the  Elburz  chain,  and  the  flat  country  at 
its  base  as  far  as  the  northern  edge  of  the  desert,  where  it 
bordered  on  Sagartia.  It  was  a  narrow  but  fertile  territory, 
watered  by  the  numerous  streams  which  here  descend  from 
the  mountains. 

Aria,  the  modern  territory  of  Herat,  adjoined  Parthia  on  the 
east.  It  was  a  small  but  fertile  tract  on  the  river  Arius  (the  Heri- 
rud),  with  a  capital  city,  called  Aria  or  Artacoana  (Herat). 

Arachosia,  east  of  Aria,  comprised  most  of  Western  and 
Central  Affghanistan.  Its  rivers  were  the  Etymandrus  (Hel- 
mend)  and  the  Arachotus  (Arghand-ab).  The  capital  was 
Arachotus  (Kandahar?).  It  was  an  extensive  country,  moun- 
tainous and  generally  barren,  but  containing  a  good  deal  of 
fair  pasturage,  and  a  few  fertile  vales. 


Sattagydia  adjoined  Arachosia  on  the  east,  corresponding 
to  South-eastern  Affghanistan,  or  the  tract  between  Kandahar 
and  the  Indus  valley.  In  character  it  closely  resembled  Ara- 
chosia, but  was  on  the  whole  wilder  and  more  rugged. 

Gandaria  lay  above  Sattagydia,  comprising  the  modern 
Kabul  and  Kaferistan.  It  consisted  of  a  mass  of  tangled  moun- 
tain-chains, with  fertile  valleys  between  them,  often,  however, 
narrowing  to  gorges  difficult  to  penetrate.  Its  principal 
stream  was  the  Cophen  (or  river  of  Kabul),  a  tributary  of  the 
Indus,  and  its  chief  town  Caspatyrus  (Kabul?). 

Sarangia,  or  Zarangia,  was  the  tract  lying  about  the  salt 
lake  (Hamoon)  into  which  the  Etymandrus  (Helmend)  emp- 
ties itself.  This  tract  is  flat,  and  generally  desert,  except  along 
the  courses  of  the  many  streams  which  flow  into  the  Hamoon 
from  the  north  and  east. 

Gedrosia  corresponded  to  the  modern  Beluchistan.  It  lay 
south  of  Sarangia,  Arachosia,  and  Sattagydia,  and  east  of 
Sagartia  and  Mycia.  On  the  east  its  boundary  was  the  Indus 
valley ;  on  the  south  it  was  washed  by  the  Indian  Ocean.  It 
was  a  region  of  alternate  rock  and  sand,  very  scantily  watered, 
and  almost  entirely  destitute  of  wood.  The  chief  town  was 
Pura  (perhaps  Bunpoor). 

The  lowland  to  the  south,  or  rather  the  south-west,  of  the 
great  West- Asian  plateau,  comprised  five  countries  only :  viz., 
Syria,  Arabia,  Assyria,  Susis  or  Susiana,  and  Babylonia.  Each 
of  these  requires  a  short  notice. 

Syria,  bounded  by  Cilicia  on  the  north,  the  Euphrates  on  the 
north-east,  the  Arabian  desert  on  the  south-east  and  south,  and 
by  the  Levant  upon  the  west,  comprised  the  following  regions : 
1st.  Syria  Proper,  or  the  tract  reaching  from  Amanus  to  Her- 
mon  and  Palmyra.  Chief  cities  in  the  ante-Cyrus  period: 
Carchemish,  Hamath,  Damascus,  Baalbek,  and  Tadmor  or 
Palmyra.  Chief  river,  the  Orontes.  Mountains :  Casius,  Bar- 
gylus,  Libanus,  and  anti-Libanus.  2d.  Phoenicia,  the  coast- 
tract  from  the  thirty-fifth  to  the  thirty-third  parallel,  separated 
from  Syria  Proper  by  the  ridge  of  Libanus.  Chief  towns: 
Tyre,  Sidon,  Berytus,  Byblus,  Tripolis,  Aradus.  3d.  Pales- 
tine, comprising  Galilee,  Samaria,  Judaea,  and  Philistia,  or 
Palestine  Proper.     Chief  cities:   Jerusalem,  Samaria,  Azotus 


or  Ashdod,  Ascalon,  and  Gaza  or  Cadytis.  Mountains :  Her- 
mon,  Carmel.  River,  Jordan.  Northern  and  Western  Syria 
are  mountainous,  and  generally  fertile.  Eastern  Syria  is  an 
arid  desert,  broken  only  by  a  few  oases,  of  which  the  Palmy- 
rene  is  the  principal. 

Arabia  lay  south  and  south-east  of  Syria.  It  was  a  country 
of  enormous  size,  being  estimated  to  contain  a  million  of 
square  miles,  or  more  than  one-fourth  the  area  of  Europe. 
Consisting,  however,  as  it  does,  mainly  of  sandy  or  rocky 
deserts,  its  population  must  always  have  been  scanty,  and  its 
productions  few.  In  the  ancient  world  it  was  never  of  much 
account,  the  inhabitants  being  mainly  nomads,  and  only  the 
outlying  tribes  coming  into  contact  with  the  neighboring  na- 
tions. The  only  important  towns  were,  in  the  east,  Gerrha, 
a  great  trading  settlement ;  in  the  west,  Petra  and  Elath. 

Assyria  intervened  between  Syria  and  Media.  It  was 
bounded  on  the  north  by  the  snowy  chain  of  Niphates,  which 
separated  it  from  Armenia,  and  on  the  east  by  the  outer  ranges 
of  Zagros.  Westward  its  limit  was  the  Euphrates,  while  south- 
ward it  adjoined  on  Babylonia  and  Susiana.  Towards  the 
north  and  east  it  included  some  mountain  tracts ;  but  in  the 
main  it  was  a  great  rolling  plain,  at  a  low  level,  scantily  watered 
towards  the  west,  where  the  Euphrates  has  few  affluents,  but 
well  supplied  towards  the  east,  where  Mount  Zagros  sends 
down  many  large  streams  to  join  the  Tigris.  Its  chief  cities 
were  Ninus,  or  Nineveh,  Calah,  and  Asshur  upon  the  Tig^s ; 
Arbela  in  the  region  between  the  Tigfris  and  Mount  Zagros; 
Nisibis,  Amida,  Harran  or  Carrhae,  and  Circesium  in  the  dis- 
trict between  the  g^eat  rivers.  Its  streams,  besides  the  Tigris 
and  Euphrates,  were  the  Bilichus  (Belik)  and  the  Chaboras 
(Western  Khabour),  affluents  of  the  Euphrates ;  the  Centrites 
(Bitlis  Chai),  the  Elastem  Khabour,  the  Zabatus  (or  Zab  Ala), 
the  Caprus  (or  Zab  Asfal),  and  the  Gyndes  or  Physcus  (Diya- 
leh),  tributaries  of  the  Tigris.  It  contained  on  the  north  the 
mountain  range  of  Masius  (Jebel  Tur  and  Karajah  Dagh). 
Its  chief  districts  were  Aturia,  or  Assyria  Proper,  the  tract 
about  Nineveh;  Adiabene,  the  country  between  the  Upper 
Zab  and  the  Lower ;  Chalonitis,  the  region  south  of  the  Lower 
Zab ;  and  Gozan  (or  Mygdonia)  on  the  Western  Khabour  at 



the  foot  of  the  Mons  Masius.  The  Greeks  called  the  whole 
tract  between  the  two  great  rivers  Mesopotamia. 

Susis,  Susiana  or  Cissia,  lay  south-east  of  Assyria,  and  con- 
sisted chiefly  of  the  low  plain  between  the  Zagros  range  and 
the  Tigris,  but  comprised  also  a  portion  of  the  mountain  re- 
gion. Its  rivers  were  the  Choaspes  (Kerkheh),  the  Pasitigris 
(Kuran),  the  Eulaeus  (a  branch  stream  formerly  running  from 
the  Choaspes  into  the  Pasitigris),  and  the  Hedypnus  (Jerrahi). 
Capital  city,  Susa,  between  the  Choaspes  and  Eulaeus  rivers. 

Babylonia  lay  due  south  of  Assyria,  in  which  it  was  some- 
times included.  The  Une  of  demarkation  between  them  was 
the  limit  of  the  alluvium.  On  the  east  Babylonia  was  bounded 
by  Susiana,  on  the  west  by  Arabia,  and  on  the  south  by  the 
Persian  Gulf.  It  was  a  single  alluvial  plain  of  vast  extent  and 
extraordinary  fertility.  The  chief  cities,  besides  Babylon  on 
the  Euphrates,  were  Ur  (now  Mugheir),  Erech  (Warka),  Cal- 
neh  (Niffer),  Cutha  (Ibrahim),  Sippara  or  Sepharvaim  (Mo- 
saib),  and  Borsippa  (Birs-Nimrud).  The  more  southern  part 
of  Babylonia,  bordering  on  Arabia  and  the  Persian  Gulf,  was 
known  as  Chaldaea. 

The  Peninsula  of  Hindustan,  the  last  of  the  four  great  divis- 
ions of  South-western  Asia,  contains  nearly  a  million  and 
a  quarter  of  square  miles.  Nature  has  divided  it  into  three  very 
distinct  tracts,  one  towards  the  north-west,  consisting  of  the 
basin  drained  by  the  Indus ;  one  towards  the  east,  or  the  basin 
drained  by  the  Ganges;  and  one  towards  the  south,  or  the 
peninsula  proper.  Of  these  the  north-western  only  was  con- 
nected with  the  history  of  the  ancient  world. 

This  tract,  called  India  from  the  river  on  which  it  lay,  was 
separated  off  from  the  rest  of  Hindustan  by  a  broad  belt  of 
desert.  It  comprised  two  regions — ist,  that  known  in  mod- 
ern times  as  the  Punjab,  abutting  immediately  on  the  Him- 
alaya chain,  and  containing  about  50,000  square  miles ;  a  vast 
triangular  plain,  intersected  by  the  courses  of  five  great  rivers 
(whence  Punj-ab  =  Five  Rivers) — the  Indus,  the  Hydaspes 
(Jelum),  the  Acesines  (Chenab),  the  Hydraotes  (Ravee),  and 
the  Hyphasis  (Sutlej), — fertile  along  their  course,  but  other- 
wise barren.  2dly,  the  region  known  as  Scinde,  or  the 
Indus  valley  below  the  Punjab,  a  tract  of  about  the  same  size, 


including  the  rich  plain  of  Cutchi  Gandava  on  the  west  bank 
of  the  river,  and  the  broad  delta  of  the  Indus  towards  the  south. 
Chief  town  of  the  upper  region,  Taxila  (Attok) ;  of  the  south- 
ern, Pattala  (Tatta?). 


The  physical  conformation  of  Western  Asia  is  favorable 
to  the  growth  of  large  empires.  In  the  vast  plain  which  ex- 
tends from  the  foot  of  Niphates  and  Zagros  to  the  Persian 
Gulf,  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  Mediterranean,  there  are  no  natural 
fastnesses ;  and  the  race  which  is  numerically  or  physically 
superior  to  the  other  races  inhabiting  it  readily  acquires  do- 
minion over  the  entire  region.  Similarly,  only  not  quite  to  the 
same  extent,  in  the  upland  region  which  succeeds  to  this  plain 
upon  the  east,  there  is  a  deficiency  of  natural  barriers,  and  the 
nation  which  once  begins  to  excel  its  neighbors,  rapidly  ex- 
tends its  influence  over  a  wide  stretch  of  territory.  The  upland 
and  lowland  powers  are  generally  pretty  evenly  balanced,  and 
maintain  a  struggle  in  which  neither  side  gfives  way ;  but  occa- 
sionally the  equality  becomes  deranged.  Circumstances  give 
to  the  one  or  to  the  other  additional  strength ;  and  the  result 
is  that  its  rival  is  overpowered.  Then  an  empire  of  still  greater 
extent  is  formed,  both  upland  and  lowland  falling  under  the 
sway  of  the  same  people. 

Still  more  remarkable  than  this  uniformity  of  size  is  the 
uniformity  of  governmental  type  observable  throughout  all 
these  empires.  The  form  of  government  is  in  every  case  a 
monarchy ;  the  monarchy  is  always  hereditary ;  and  the  hered- 
itary monarch  is  a  despot.  A  few  feeble  checks  are  in  some 
instances  devised  for  the  purpose  of  restraining  within  certain 
limits  the  caprice  or  the  cruelty  of  the  holder  of  power;  but 
these  barriers,  where  they  exist,  are  easily  overleaped;  and 
in  most  cases  there  is  not  even  any  such  semblance  of  inter- 
ference with  the  will  of  the  ruler,  who  is  the  absolute  master  of 
the  lives,  liberties,  and  property  of  his  subjects.     Despotism 


is  the  simplest,  coarsest,  and  rudest  of  all  the  forms  of  civil 
government.  It  was  thus  naturally  the  first  which  men, 
pressed  by  a  sudden  need,  extemporized.  And  in  Asia  the  wish 
has  never  arisen  to  improve  upon  this  primitive  and  imperfect 

Some  variety  is  observable  in  the  internal  organization  of 
the  empires.  In  the  remoter  times  it  was  regarded  as  sufficient 
to  receive  the  personal  submission  of  the  monarch  whose  land 
was  conquered,  to  assess  his  tribute  at  a  certain  amount,  and 
then  to  leave  him  in  the  unmolested  enjoyment  of  his  former 
dignity.  The  head  of  an  empire  was  thus  a  "  king  of  kings," 
and  the  empire  itself  was  an  aggregation  of  kingdoms.  After 
a  while  an  improvement  was  made  on  the  simplicity  of  this 
early  system.  Satraps,  or  provincial  governors,  court  officials 
belonging  to  the  conquering  nation,  and  holding  their  office 
only  during  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Great  King,  were  sub- 
stituted for  the  native  monarchs;  and  arrangements  more  or 
less  complicated  were  devised  for  checking  and  controlling 
them  in  the  exercise  of  their  authority.  The  power  of  the  head 
of  the  empire  was  thus  considerably  increased ;  and  the  empire 
acquired  a  stability  unknown  under  the  previous  system.  Uni- 
formity of  administration  was  to  a  certain  extent  secured.  At 
the  same  time,  a  very  great  diversity  underlay  this  external 
uniformity,  since  the  conquered  nations  were  generally  suf- 
fered to  retain  their  own  language,  religion,  and  usages.  No 
effort  was  made  even  to  interfere  with  their  laws ;  and  thus 
the  provinces  continued,  after  the  lapse  of  centuries,  as  separate 
and  distinct  in  tone,  feeling,  ideas,  and  aspirations,  as  at  the 
time  when  they  were  conquered.  The  sense  of  separateness 
was  never  lost ;  the  desire  of  recovering  national  independence, 
at  best,  slumbered;  nothing  was  wanted  but  opportunity  to 
stir  up  the  dormant  feeling,  and  to  shatter  the  seeming  unity 
of  the  empire  into  a  thousand  fragments. 

A  characteristic  of  the  Oriental  monarchies,  which  very 
markedly  distinguishes  them  from  the  kingdoms  of  the  West, 
is  the  prevalence  of  polygamy.  The  polygamy  of  the  monarch 
swells  to  excessive  numbers  the  hangers-on  of  the  court,  neces- 
sitates the  building  of  a  vast  palace,  encourages  effeminacy 
and  luxury,  causes  the  annual  outlay  of  enormous  sums  on 


the  maintenance  of  the  royal  household,  introduces  a  degraded 
and  unnatural  class  of  human  beings  into  positions  of  trust  and 
dignity ;  in  a  word,  at  once  saps  the  vital  force  of  the  empire 
in  its  central  citadel,  and  imposes  heavy  burdens  on  the  mass 
of  the  population,  which  tend  to  produce  exhaustion  and  paral- 
ysis of  the  whole  body  politic.  The  practice  of  polygamy 
among  the  upper  classes,  destroying  the  domestic  affections 
by  diluting  them,  degrades  and  injures  the  moral  character  of 
those  who  give  its  tone  to  the  nation,  lowers  their  physical 
energy,  and  renders  them  self-indulgent  and  indolent.  Nor 
do  the  lower  classes,  though  their  poverty  saves  them  from 
participating  directly  in  the  evil,  escape  unscathed.  Yielding, 
as  they  commonly  do,  to  the  temptation  of  taking  money  for 
their  daughters  from  the  proprietors  of  harems,  they  lose  by 
degrees  all  feeling  of  self-respect ;  the  family  bond,  corrupted 
in  its  holiest  element,  ceases  to  have  an  elevating  influence; 
and  the  traffickers  in  their  own  flesh  and  blood  become  the 
ready  tools  of  tyrants,  the  ready  applauders  of  crime,  and  the 
submissive  victims  of  every  kind  of  injustice  and  oppression. 
The  Asiatic  Empires  were  always  founded  upon  conquest; 
and  conquest  implies  the  possession  of  military  qualities  in  the 
victors  superior  at  any  rate  to  those  of  the  vanquished  nations. 
Usually  the  conquering  people  were  at  first  simple  in  their 
habits,  brave,  hardy,  and,  comparatively  speaking,  poor.  The 
immediate  consequence  of  their  victory  was  the  exchange  of 
poverty  for  riches;  and  riches  usually  brought  in  their  train 
the  evils  of  luxurious  living  and  idleness.  The  conquerors 
rapidly  deteriorated  under  such  influences ;  and,  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  common  practice  of  confining  the  use  of  arms, 
either  wholly  or  mainly,  to  their  own  class,  they  might,  in  a 
very  few  generations,  have  had  to  change  places  with  their 
subjects.  Even  in  spite  of  this  practice  they  continually  de- 
creased in  courage  and  warlike  spirit.  The  monarchs  usually 
became  faineants,  and  confined  themselves  to  the  precincts  of 
the  palace.  The  nobles  left  oflF  altogether  the  habit  of  athletic 
exercise.  Military  expeditions  grew  to  be  infrequent.  When 
they  became  a  necessity  in  consequence  of  revolt  or  of  border 
ravages,  the  deficiencies  of  the  native  troops  had  to  be  supplied 
by  the  employment  of  foreig^n  mercenaries,  who  cared  nothing 


for  the  cause  in  which  their  swords  were  drawn.  Meanwhile, 
the  conquerors  were  apt  to  quarrel  among  themselves.  Great 
satraps  would  revolt  and  change  their  governments  into  inde- 
pendent sovereignties.  Pretenders  to  the  crown  would  start 
up  among  the  monarch's  nearest  relatives,  and  the  strength 
and  resources  of  the  state  would  be  wasted  in  civil  conflicts. 
The  extortion  of  provincial  governors  exhausted  the  prov- 
inces, while  the  corruption  of  the  court  weakened  the  empire 
at  its  centre.  Still,  the  tottering  edifice  would  stand  for  years, 
or  even  for  centuries,  if  there  was  no  attack  from  abroad,  by 
a  mere  vis  inertice;  but,  sooner  or  later,  such  an  attack  was 
sure  to  come,  and  then  the  unsubstantial  fabric  gave  way  at 
once  and  crumbled  to  dust  under  a  few  blows  vigorously  dealt 
by  a  more  warlike  nation. 



The  earliest  of  the  Asiatic  monarchies  sprang  up  in  the 
alluvial  plain  at  the  head  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  Here  Moses 
places  the  first  "  kingdom  "  (Gen.  x.  lo) ;  and  here  Berosus 
regarded  a  Chaldaean  monarchy  as  established  probably  as 
early  as  B.C.  2000.  The  Hebrew  records  give  Nimrod  as  the 
founder  of  this  kingdom,  and  exhibit  Chedorlaomer  as  lord- 
paramount  in  the  region  not  very  long  afterwards.  The  names 
of  the  kings  in  the  lists  of  Berosus  are  lost ;  but  we  are  told 
that  he  mentioned  by  name  forty-nine  Chaldaean  monarchs, 
whose  reigns  covered  a  space  of  458  years  from  about  B.C. 
2000  to  about  B.C.  1543.  The  primeval  monuments  of  the 
country  have  yielded  memorials  of  fifteen  or  sixteen  kings, 
who  probably  belonged  to  this  early  period.  They  were  at  any 
rate  the  builders  of  the  most  ancient  edifices  now  existing  in 
the  country;  and  their  date  is  long  anterior  to  the  time  of 
Sennacherib  and  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  phonetic  reading  of 
these  monumental  names  is  too  uncertain  to  justify  their  in- 
sertion here.    It  will  be  sufficient  to  give,  from  Berosus,  an 


outline  of  the  dynasties  which  ruled  in  Chaldsea,  from  about 
B.C.  2000  to  747,  the  era  of  Nabonassar : 

Chaldxan    dynasty,     ruling    for    458    years 

(Kings:    Nimrod,  Chedorlaomer) about  B.C.  2001  to  1543 

Arabian  dynasty,  ruling  for  245  years about  B.C.  1543  to  1298 

Dynasty  of  forty-five  kings,  ruling  for  526 

years  about  B.C.  1298  to    772 

Reign  of  Pul  (say  25  years) about  B.C.    772  to    747 

Berosus,  it  will  be  observed,  marks  during  this  period  two, 
if  not  three,  changes  of  dynasty.  After  the  Chaldaeans  have 
borne  sway  for  458  years,  they  are  succeeded  by  Arabs,  who 
hold  the  dominion  for  245  years,  when  they  too  are  super- 
seded by  a  race  not  named,  but  probably  Assyrian.  This  race 
bears  rule  for  526  years,  and  then  Pul  ascends  the  throne,  and 
reigns  for  a  term  of  years  not  stated.  (Pul  is  called  "  king  of 
Assyria  "  in  Scripture ;  but  this  may  be  an  inexactness.  He 
is  not  to  be  found  among  the  Assyrian  monumental  kings.) 
These  changes  of  dynasty  mark  changes  of  condition.  Under 
the  first  or  Chaldaean  dynasty,  and  under  the  last  monarch, 
Pul,  the  country  was  flourishing  and  free.  The  second  dynasty 
was  probably,  and  the  third  certainly,  established  by  conquest. 
Chaldaea,  during  the  526  years  of  the  third  dynasty,  was  of 
secondary  importance  to  Assyria,  and  though  from  time  to 
time  engaged  in  wars  with  the  dominant  power  of  Western 
Asia,  was  in  the  main  submissive  and  even  subject.  The  names 
of  six  kings  belonging  to  this  dynasty  have  been  recovered 
from  the  Assyrian  monuments.  Among  them  is  a  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, while  the  majority  commence  with  the  name  of  the 
god  Merodach. 

The  Chaldaean  monarchy  had  from  the  first  an  architectural 
character.  Babylon,  Erech  or  Orchoe,  Accad,  and  Calneh, 
were  founded  by  Nimrod.  Ur  was  from  an  early  date  a  city 
of  importance.  The  attempt  to  build  a  tower  "  which  should 
reach  to  heaven,"  made  here  (Gen.  xi.  4),  was  in  accordance 
with  the  general  spirit  of  the  Chaldaean  people.  Out  of  such 
simple  and  rude  materials  as  brick  and  bitumen  vast  edifices 
were  constructed,  pyramidical  in  design,  but  built  in  steps  or 
stages  of  considerable  altitude.  Other  arts  also  flourished. 
Letters  were  in  use;  and  the  baked  bricks  employed  by  the 



royal  builders  had  commonly  a  legend  in  their  centre.  Gems 
were  cut,  polished,  and  engraved  with  representations  of  hu- 
man forms,  portrayed  with  spirit.  Metals  of  many  kinds  were 
worked,  and  fashioned  into  arms,  ornaments,  and  implements. 
Textile  fabrics  of  a  delicate  tissue  were  manufactured.  Com- 
merce was  carried  on  with  the  neighboring  nations  both  by 
land  and  sea :  the  "  ships  of  Ur  "  visiting  the  shores  of  the 
Persian  Gulf,  and  perhaps  those  of  the  ocean  beyond  it.  The 
study  of  Astronomy  commenced,  and  observations  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies  were  made,  and  carefully  recorded. 


The  traces  which  we  possess  of  the  First  Period  are  chiefly 
monumental.  The  Assyrian  inscriptions  furnish  two  lists — 
one  of  three,  and  the  other  of  four  consecutive  kings — which 
belong  probably  to  this  early  time.  The  seat  of  empire  is  at 
first  Asshur  (now  Kileh  Sherghat),  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
Tigris,  about  sixty  miles  below  Nineveh.  Some  of  the  kings 
are  connected  by  intermarriage  with  the  Chaldaean  monarchs 
of  the  period,  and  take  part  in  the  struggles  of  pretenders  to 
the  Chaldaean  crown.  One  of  them,  Shalmaneser  I.,  wars  in 
the  mountain-chain  of  Niphates,  and  plants  cities  in  that  region 
(about  B.C.  1270).  This  monarch  also  builds  Calah  (Nimrud), 
forty  miles  north  of  Asshur,  on  the  left  or  east  bank  of  the  river. 

The  Second  Period  is  evidently  that  of  which  Herodotus 
spoke  as  lasting  for  520  years,  from  about  B.C.  1260  to  740. 
It  commenced  with  the  conquest  of  Babylon  by  Tiglathi-nin 
(probably  the  original  of  the  Greek  "  Ninus  "),  and  it  termi- 
nated with  the  new  dynasty  established  by  Tiglath-pileser  II. 
The  monuments  furnish  for  the  earlier  portion  of  this  period 
some  nine  or  ten  discontinuous  royal  names,  while  for  the 
later  portion  they  supply  a  complete  consecutive  list,  and  an 
exact  chronology.  The  exact  chronology  begins  with  the  year 
B.C.  909. 

The  great  king  of  the  earlier  portion  of  the  Second  Period 
is  a  certain  Tiglath-pileser,  who  has  left  a  long  historical  in- 
scription, which  shows  that  he  carried  his  arms  deep  into 
Mount  Zagros  on  the  one  hand,  and  as  far  as  Northern  Syria 


on  the  other.  He  Hkewise  made  an  expedition  into  Babylonia. 
Date,  about  B.C.  1 130.  His  son  was  also  a  warlike  prince ;  but 
from  about  B.C.  1100  to  900  Assyrian  history  is  still  almost 
a  blank;  and  it  is  probable  that  we  have  here  a  period  of 

For  the  later  portion  of  the  Second  Period — from  B.C.  909 
to  745 — the  chronology  is  exact,  and  the  materials  for  history 
are  abundant.  In  this  period  Calah  became  the  capital,  and 
several  of  the  palaces  and  temples  were  erected  which  have 
been  disinterred  at  Nimrud.  The  Assyrian  monarchs  carried 
their  arms  beyond  Zagros,  and  came  into  contact  with  Medes 
and  Persians ;  they  deeply  penetrated  Armenia ;  and  they 
pressed  from  Northern  into  Southern  Syria,  and  imposed  their 
yoke  upon  the  Phoenicians,  the  kingdom  of  Damascus,  and 
the  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  names  of  Ben-hadad,  Hazael, 
Ahab,  and  Jehu  are  common  to  the  Assyrian  and  Hebrew 
records.  Towards  the  close  of  the  period,  the  kings  became 
slothful  and  unwarlike,  military  expeditions  ceased,  or  were 
conducted  only  to  short  distances  and  against  insignificant 

The  Assyrian  art  of  the  Second  shows  a  great  advance  upon 
that  of  the  First  Period.  Magnificent  palaces  were  built, 
richly  embellished  with  bas-reliefs.  Sculpture  was  rigid,  but 
bold  and  gjand.  Literature  was  more  cultivated.  The  history 
of  each  reign  was  written  by  contemporary  annalists,  and  cut 
on  stone,  or  impressed  on  cylinders  of  baked  clay.  Engraved 
stelcp  were  erected  in  all  the  countries  under  Assyrian  rule. 
Considerable  communication  took  place  with  foreign  coun- 
tries ;  and  Bactrian  camels,  baboons,  curious  antelopes,  ele- 
phants, and  rhinoceroses  were  imported  into  Assyria  from  the 

In  the  Third  Period  the  Assyrian  Empire  reached  the  height 
of  its  greatness  under  the  dynasty  of  the  Sargonidae,  after 
which  it  fell  suddenly,  owing  to  blows  received  from  two  pow- 
erful foes.  The  period  commenced  with  a  revival  of  the  mili- 
tary spirit  and  vigor  of  the  nation  under  Tiglath-pileser  II., 
the  king  of  that  name  mentioned  in  Scripture.  Distant  expe- 
ditions were  resumed,  and  the  arms  of  Assyria  carried  into 
new  regions.    Egypt  was  attacked  and  reduced ;  Susiana  was 



subjugated;  and  in  Asia  Minor  Taurus  was  crossed,  Cappa- 
docia  invaded,  and  relations  established  with  the  Lydian  mon- 
arch, Gyges.  Naval  expeditions  were  undertaken  both  in  the 
Mediterranean  and  the  Persian  Gulf,  Cyprus  submitted,  and 
the  Assyrian  monarchs  numbered  Greeks  among  their  sub- 
jects. Almost  all  the  kings  of  the  period  came  into  contact 
with  the  Jews,  and  the  names  of  most  of  them  appear  in  the 
Hebrew  records.  Towards  the  close  of  th€  period  the  empire 
sustained  a  severe  shock  from  the  sudden  invasion  of  vast 
hordes  of  Scythians  from  the  North.  Before  it  could  recover 
from  the  prostration  caused  by  this  attack,  its  old  enemy, 
Media,  fell  upon  it,  and,  assisted  by  Babylon,  effected  its  de- 

Assyrian  art  attained  to  its  greatest  perfection  during  this 
last  period.  Palaces  were  built  by  Tiglath-pileser  II.  at  Calah, 
by  Sargon  at  Dur  Sargina  (Khorsabad),  by  Sennacherib  at 
Nineveh,  by  Esarhaddon  at  Calah  and  Nineveh,  by  Sardanap- 
alus  II.  at  Nineveh,  and  by  Saracus  at  Calah.  Glyptic  art  ad- 
vanced, especially  under  Sardanapalus,  when  the  animal  forms 
were  executed  with  a  naturalness  and  a  spirit  worthy  of  the 
Greeks.  At  the  same  time  carving  in  ivory,  metallurgy,  model- 
ling, and  other  similar  arts  made  much  progress.  An  active 
commerce  united  Assyria  with  Phoenicia,  Egypt,  and  Greece. 
Learning  of  various  kinds — astronomic,  geographic,  linguis- 
tic, historical — was  pursued;  and  stores  were  accumulated 
which  will  long  exercise  the  ingenuity  of  the  moderns. 


The  primitive  history  of  the  Medes  is  enveloped  in  great 
obscurity.  The  mention  of  them  as  Madai  in  Genesis  (x.  2), 
and  the  statement  of  Berosus  that  they  furnished  an  early  dy- 
nasty to  Babylon,  imply  their  importance  in  very  ancient  times. 
But  scarcely  any  thing  is  known  of  them  till  the  ninth  century 
B.C.,  when  they  were  attacked  in  their  own  proper  country. 
Media  Magna,  by  the  Assyrians  (about  B.C.  830).  At  this 
time  they  were  under  the  government  of  numerous  petty  chief- 
tains, and  offered  but  a  weak  resistance  to  the  arms  of  the 


Assyrian  monarchs.  No  part  of  their  country,  however,  was 
reduced  to  subjection  until  the  time  of  Sargon,  who  conquered 
some  Median  territory  about  B.C.  710,  and  planted  it  with 
cities  in  which  he  placed  his  Israelite  captives.  The  subse- 
quent Assyrian  monarchs  made  further  conquests;  and  it  is 
evident  from  their  records  that  no  gjeat  Median  monarchy  had 
arisen  down  to  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century  B.C. 

The  earliest  date  which,  with  our  present  knowledge,  we 
can  assign  for  the  commencement  of  a  great  Median  monarchy 
is  B.C.  650.  The  monarchs  assigned  by  Herodotus  and  Ctesias 
to  a  time  anterior  to  this  may  conceivably  have  been  chiefs 
of  petty  Median  tribes,  but  were  certainly  not  the  heads  of  the 
whole  nation.  The  probability  is  that  they  are  fictitious  per- 
sonages. Suspicion  attaches  especially  to  the  list  of  Ctesias, 
which  appears  to  have  been  formed  by  an  intentional  duplica- 
tion of  the  regnal  and  other  periods  mentioned  by  Herodotus. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  about  B.C.  650,  or  a  little 
later,  the  Medes  of  Media  Magna  were  largely  reinforced  by 
fresh  immigrants  from  the  East,  and  that  shortly  afterwards 
they  were  enabled  to  take  an  aggressive  attitude  towards  As- 
syria, such  as  had  previously  been  quite  beyond  their  power. 
In  B.C.  633 — according  to  Herodotus — they  attacked  Nineveh, 
but  were  completely  defeated,  their  leader,  whom  he  calls 
Phraortes,  being  slain  in  the  battle.  Soon  after  this  occurred 
the  Scythian  inroad,  which  threw  the  Medes  upon  the  defen- 
sive, and  hindered  them  from  resuming  their  schemes  of  con- 
quest for  several  years.  But,  when  this  danger  had  passed, 
they  once  more  invaded  the  Assyrian  Empire  in  force.  Nine- 
veh was  invested  and  fell.  Media  upon  this  became  the  leading 
power  of  Western  Asia,  but  was  not  the  sole  power,  since  the 
spoils  of  Assyria  were  divided  between  her  and  Babylon. 

Less  is  known  of  Median  art  and  civilization  than  of  As- 
syrian, Babylonian,  or  Persian.  Their  architecture  appears 
to  have  possessed  a  barbaric  magnificence,  but  not  much  of 
either  grandeur  or  beauty.  The  great  palace  at  Ecbatana 
was  of  wood,  plated  with  gold  and  silver.  After  the  conquest 
of  Nineveh,  luxurious  habits  were  adopted  from  the  Assyrians, 
and  the  court  of  Astyages  was  probably  as  splendid  as  that 
of  Esarhaddon  and  Sardanapalus.  The  chief  known  peculiar- 



ity  of  the  Median  kingdom  was  the  ascendency  exercised  in 
it  by  the  Magi — a  priestly  caste  claiming  supernatural  powers, 
which  had,  apparently,  been  adopted  into  the  nation. 


After  the  conquest  of  Babylonia  by  the  Assyrians,  about 
B.C.  1250,  an  Assyrian  dynasty  was  established  at  Babylon, 
and  the  country  was,  in  general,  content  to  hold  a  secondary 
position  in  Western  Asia,  acknowledging  the  suzerainty  of 
the  Ninevite  kings.  From  time  to  time  efforts  were  made  to 
shake  off  the  yoke,  but  without  much  success  till  the  accession 
of  Nabonassar,  B.C.  747.  Under  Nabonassar  and  several  of 
his  successors  Babylonia  appears  to  have  been  independent; 
and  this  condition  of  independence  continued,  with  intervals 
of  subjection,  down  to  the  accession  of  Esarhaddon,  B.C.  680, 
when  Assyrian  supremacy  was  once  more  established.  Baby- 
lon then  continued  in  a  subject  position,  till  the  time  when 
Nabopolassar  made  alliance  with  Cyaxares,  joined  in  the  last 
siege  of  Nineveh,  and,  when  Nineveh  fell,  became  independent, 
B.C.  625. 

During  the  Second  Period,  Babylonia  was  not  only  an  inde- 
pendent kingdom,  but  was  at  the  head  of  an  empire.  Nabo- 
polassar and  Cyaxares  divided  the  Assyrian  dominions  be- 
tween them,  the  former  obtaining  for  his  share  Susiana,  the 
Euphrates  valley,  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Palestine.  A  brilliant 
period  followed.  At  first  indeed  the  new  empire  was  threat- 
ened by  Egypt;  and  for  a  few  years  the  western  provinces 
were  actually  held  in  subjection  by  Pharaoh-nechoh ;  but 
Babylon  now  aroused  herself,  defeated  Nechoh,  recovered  her 
territory,  and  carrying  her  arms  through  Palestine  into  Egypt, 
chastised  the  aggressor  on  his  own  soil.  From  this  time  till 
the  invasion  of  Cyrus  the  empire  continued  to  flourish,  but 
became  gradually  less  and  less  warlike,  and  offered  a  poor 
resistance  to  the  Persians. 

The  architectural  works  of  the  Babylonians,  more  especially 
under  Nebuchadnezzar,  were  of  surpassing  grandeur.  The 
"  hanging  gardens  "  of  that  prince,  and  the  walls  with  which 
he  surrounded  Babylon,  were  reckoned  among  the  Seven 


Wonders  of  the  World.  The  materials  used  were  the  same 
as  in  the  early  Chaldaean  times,  sunburnt  and  baked  brick; 
but  the  baked  now  preponderated.  The  ornamentation  of 
buildings  was  by  bricks  of  different  hues,  or  sometimes  by 
a  plating  of  precious  metal,  or  by  enamelling.  By  means  of 
the  last-named  process,  war-scenes  and  hunting-scenes  were 
represented  on  the  walls  of  palaces,  which  are  said  to  have  been 
life-like  and  spirited.  Temple-towers  were  still  built  in  stages, 
which  now  sometimes  reached  the  number  of  seven.  Useful 
works  of  great  magnitude  were  also  constructed  by  some  of 
the  kings,  especially  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Nabonadius; 
such  as  canals,  reservoirs,  embankments,  sluices,  and  piers 
on  the  shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  Commerce  flourished,  and 
Babylon  was  reckoned  emphatically  a  "  city  of  merchants." 
The  study  of  astronomy  was  also  pursued  with  zeal  and  in- 
dustry. Observations  were  made  and  carefully  recorded.  The 
sky  was  mapped  out  into  constellations,  and  the  fixed  stars 
were  catalogued.  Occultations  of  the  planets  by  the  sun  and 
moon  were  noted.  Time  was  accurately  measured  by  means 
of  sun-dials,  and  other  astronomical  instruments  were  prob- 
ably invented.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  confessed  that  the 
astronomical  science  of  the  Babylonians  was  not  pure,  but  was 
largely  mixed  with  astrology,  more  especially  in  the  later  times. 


The  geographical  formation  of  Asia  Minor,  which  separates 
it  into  a  number  of  distinct  and  isolated  regions,  was  probably 
the  main  reason  why  it  did  not  in  early  times  become  the  seat 
of  a  great  empire.  The  near  equality  of  strength  that  existed 
among  several  of  the  races  by  which  it  was  inhabited — as  the 
Phrygians,  the  Lydians,  the  Carians,  the  Cilicians,  the  Paph- 
lagonians,  and  the  Cappadocians — would  tend  naturally  in  the 
same  direction,  and  lead  to  the  formation  of  several  parallel 
kingdoms  instead  of  a  single  and  all-embracing  one.  Never- 
theless, ultimately,  such  a  g^reat  kingdom  did  grow  up;  but 
it  had  only  just  been  formed  when  it  was  subverted  by  one 
more  powerful. 



The  most  powerful  state  in  the  early  times  seems  to  have 
been  Phrygia.  It  had  an  extensive  and  fertile  territory,  espe- 
cially suited  for  pasturage,  and  was  also  rich  in  the  possession 
of  salt  lakes,  which  largely  furnished  that  necessary  of  life. 
The  people  were  brave,  but  somewhat  brutal.  They  had  a 
lively  and  martial  music.  It  is  probable  that  they  were  at  no 
time  all  united  into  a  single  community ;  but  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  that  a  considerable  monarchy  grew  up  in  the  north- 
western portion  of  the  country,  about  B.C.  750  or  earlier.  The 
capital  of  the  kingdom  was  Gordiseum  on  the  Sangarius.  The 
monarchs  bore  alternately  the  two  names  of  Gordias  and 
Midas.  As  many  as  four  of  each  name  have  been  distinguished 
by  some  critics;  but  the  dates  of  the  reigns  are  uncertain. 
A  Midas  appears  to  have  been  contemporary  with  Alyattes 
(about  B.C.  600  to  570),  and  a  Gordias  with  Croesus  (B.C.  570 
to  560).  Phrygia  was  conquered  and  became  a  province  of 
Lydia  about  B.C.  560. 

Cilicia  was  likewise  the  seat  of  a  monarchy  in  times  anterior 
to  Cyrus.  About  B.C.  711  Sargon  gave  the  country  to  Am- 
bris,  king  of  Tubal,  as  a  dowry  with  his  daughter.  Senna- 
cherib, about  B.C.  701,  and  Esarhaddon,  about  B.C.  (yjy,  in- 
vaded and  ravaged  the  region.  Tarsus  was  founded  by  Senna- 
cherib, about  B.C.  685.  In  B.C.  666  Sardanapalus  took  to 
wife  a  Cilician  princess.  Fifty  years  afterwards  we  find  a  Syen- 
nesis  seated  on  the  throne,  and  from  this  time  all  the  kings 
appear  to  have  borne  that  name  or  title.  Cilicia  maintained 
her  independence  against  Croesus,  and  (probably)  against  Cy- 
rus, but  submitted  to  Persia  soon  afterwards,  probably  in  the 
reign  of  Cambyses. 

Ultimately  the  most  important  of  all  the  kingdoms  of  Asia 
Minor  was  Lydia.  According  to  the  accounts  which  Herodo- 
tus followed,  a  Lydian  kingdom  had  existed  from  very  ancient 
times,  monarchs  to  whom  he  gives  the  name  of  Manes,  Atys, 
Lydus,  and  Meles,  having  borne  sway  in  Lydia  prior  to  B.C. 
1229.  This  dynasty,  which  has  been  called  Atyadae,  was  fol- 
lowed by  one  of  Heraclidae,  which  continued  in  power  for  505 
years — from  B.C.  1229  to  724.  (The  last  six  kings  of  this 
dynasty  are  known  from  Nicholas  of  Damascus  who  follows 
Xanthus,  the  native  writer.    They  were  Adyattes  I.,  Ardys, 


Adyattes  II.,  Meles,  Myrsus,  and  Sadyattes  or  Candaules.) 
On  the  murder  of  Candaules,  B.C.  724,  a  third  dynasty — that 
of  the  Mermnadae — bore  rule.  This  continued  till  B.C.  554, 
when  the  last  Lydian  monarch,  Croesus,  was  conquered  by 
Cyrus.  This  monarch  had  previously  succeeded  in  changfing 
his  kingdom  into  an  empire,  having  extended  his  dominion 
over  all  Asia  Minor,  excepting  Lycia,  Cilicia,  and  Cappadocia. 


Phoenicia,  notwithstanding  the  small  extent  of  its  territory, 
which  consisted  of  a  mere  strip  of  land  between  the  crest  of 
Lebanon  and  the  sea,  was  one  of  the  most  important  countries 
of  the  ancient  world.  In  her  the  commercial  spirit  first  showed 
itself  as  the  dominant  spirit  of  a  nation.  She  was  the  carrier 
between  the  East  and  the  West — the  link  that  bound  them 
together — in  times  anterior  to  the  first  appearance  of  the 
Greeks  as  navigfators.  No  complete  history  of  Phoenicia  has 
come  down  to  us,  nor  can  a  continuous  history  be  constructed ; 
but  some  important  fragments  remain,  and  the  general  con- 
dition of  the  country,  alternating  between  subjection  and  in- 
dependence, is  ascertained  sufficiently. 

At  no  time  did  Phoenicia  form  either  a  single  centralized 
state,  or  even  an  organized  confederacy.  Under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances the  states  were  separate  and  independent:  only 
in  times  of  danger  did  they  occasionally  unite  under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  most  powerful.  The  chief  cities  were  Tyre,  Sidon, 
Berytus,  Byblus,  Tripolis,  and  Aradus.  Of  these  Sidon  seems 
to  have  been  the  most  ancient ;  and  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that,  prior  to  about  B.C.  1050,  she  was  the  most  flourishing  of 
all  the  Phoenician  communities. 

The  priority  and  precedency  enjoyed  by  Sidon  in  the  remoter 
times  devolved  upon  Tyre  (her  colony,  according  to  some) 
about  B.C.  1050.  The  defeat  of  Sidon  by  the  Philistines  of 
Ascalon  is  said  to  have  caused  the  transfer  of  power.  Tyre, 
and  indeed  every  Phoenician  city,  was  under  the  rule  of  kings ; 
but  the  priestly  order  had  considerable  influence;  and  an 
aristocracy  of  birth,  or  wealth,  likewise  restrained  any  tyran- 


nical  inclinations  on  the  part  of  the  monarch.  The  list  of  the 
Tyrian  kings  from  about  B.C.  1050  to  830  is  known  to  us 
from  the  fragments  of  Menander. 

The  commercial  spirit  of  Phoenicia  was  largely  displayed 
during  this  period,  which,  till  towards  its  close,  was  one  of 
absolute  independence.  The  great  monarchies  of  Egypt  and 
Assyria  were  now,  comparatively  speaking,  weak;  and  the 
states  between  the  Euphrates  and  the  African  border,  being 
free  from  external  control,  were  able  to  pursue  their  natural 
bent  without  interference.  Her  commercial  leanings  early  in- 
duced Phoenicia  to  begin  the  practice  of  establishing  colonies ; 
and  the  advantages  which  the  system  was  found  to  secure 
caused  it  to  acquire  speedily  a  vast  development.  The  coasts 
and  islands  of  the  Mediterranean  were  rapidly  covered  with 
settlements;  the  Pillars  of  Hercules  were  passed,  and  cities 
built  on  the  shores  of  the  ocean.  At  the  same  time  factories 
were  established  in  the  Persian  Gulf ;  and,  conjointly  with  the 
Jews,  on  the  Red  Sea.  Phoenicia  had  at  this  time  no  serious 
commercial  rival,  and  the  trade  of  the  world  was  in  her  hands. 

The  geographical  position  of  the  Phoenician  colonies  marks 
the  chief  lines  of  their  trade,  but  is  far  from  indicating  its  full 
extent ;  since  the  most  distant  of  these  settlements  served  as 
starting-points  whence  voyages  were  made  to  remoter  regions. 
Phoenician  merchantmen  proceeding  from  Gades  and  Tartes- 
sus  explored  the  western  coast  of  Africa,  and  obtained  tin  from 
Cornwall  and  the  Scilly  Islands.  The  traders  of  Tylus  and 
Aradus  extended  their  voyages  beyond  the  Persian  Gulf  to 
India  and  Taprobane,  or  Ceylon.  Phoenician  navigators,  start- 
ing from  Elath  in  the  Red  Sea,  procured  gold  from  Ophir,  on 
the  south-eastern  coast  of  Arabia.  Thasos  and  the  neighbor- 
ing islands  furnished  convenient  stations  from  which  the 
Euxine  could  be  visited  and  commercial  relations  established 
with  Thrace,  Scythia,  and  Colchis.  Some  have  supposed  that 
the  North  Sea  was  crossed  and  the  Baltic  entered  in  quest  of 
amber;  but  the  balance  of  evidence  is,  on  the  whole,  against 
this  extreme  hypothesis. 

The  sea-trade  of  the  Phoenicians  was  probably  supplemented 
from  a  very  remote  date  by  a  land  traffic;  but  this  portion 
of  their  commerce  scarcely  obtained  its  full  development  till 


the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  A  line  of  communication  must 
indeed  have  been  established  early  with  the  Persian  Gulf  set- 
tlements; and  in  the  time  of  Solomon  there  was  no  doubt 
a  route  open  to  Phoenician  traders  from  Tyre  or  Joppa,  through 
Jerusalem,  to  Elath.  But  the  generally  disturbed  state  of 
Western  Asia  during  the  Assyrian  period  would  have  rendered 
land  traffic  then  so  insecure,  that,  excepting  where  it  was  a 
necessity,  it  would  have  been  avoided. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  period,  whereof  the  history  has 
been  sketched  above,  the  military  expeditions  of  the  Assyr- 
ians began  to  reach  Southern  Syria,  and  Phoenician  inde- 
pendence seems  to  have  been  lost.  We  can  not  be  sure 
that  the  submission  was  continuous;  but  from  the  middle  of 
the  ninth  till  past  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  there  occur 
in  the  contemporary  monuments  of  Assyria  plain  indications 
of  Phoenician  subjection,  while  there  is  no  evidence  of  resist- 
ance or  revolt.  Native  sovereigns  tributary  to  Assyria  reign 
in  the  Phoenician  towns  and  are  reckoned  by  the  Assyrian 
monarchs  among  their  dependents.  The  country  ceases  to 
have  a  history  of  its  own ;  and,  with  one  exception,  the  very 
names  of  its  rulers  have  perished. 

About  B.C.  743  the  passive  submission  of  Phoenicia  to  the 
Assyrian  yoke  began  to  be  exchanged  for  an  impatience  of  it, 
and  frequent  eflforts  were  made,  from  this  date  till  Nineveh  fell, 
to  re-establish  Phoenician  independence.  These  efforts  for  the 
most  part  failed;  but  it  is  not  improbable  that  finally,  amid 
the  troubles  under  which  the  Assyrian  empire  succumbed,  suc- 
cess crowned  the  nation's  patriotic  exertions,  and  autonomy 
was  recovered. 

Scarcely,  however,  had  Assyria  fallen,  when  a  new  enemy 
appeared  upon  the  scene.  Nechoh  of  Eg^pt,  about  B.C.  608, 
conquered  the  whole  tract  between  his  own  borders  and  the 
Euphrates.  Phoenicia  submitted  or  was  reduced,  and  remained 
for  three  years  an  Egyptian  dependency. 

Nebuchadnezzar,  in  B.C.  605,  after  his  defeat  of  Nechoh  at 
Carchemish,  added  Phoenicia  to  Babylon ;  and,  though  Tyre 
revolted  from  him  eight  years  later,  B.C.  598,  and  resisted  for 
thirteen  years  all  his  attempts  to  reduce  her,  yet  at  length  she 
was  compelled  to  submit,  and  the  Babylonian  yoke  was  firmly 


fixed  on  the  entire  Phoenician  people.  It  is  not  quite  certain 
that  they  did  not  shake  it  off  upon  the  death  of  the  great  Baby- 
lonian king- ;  but,  on  the  whole,  probability  is  in  favor  of  their 
having  remained  subject  till  the  conquest  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus, 
B.C.  538.  As  usual,  the  internal  government  of  the  depend- 
ency was  left  to  the  conquered  people,  who  were  ruled  at  this 
time  either  by  native  kings,  or,  occasionally,  by  judges. 

As  Greece  rose  to  power,  and  as  Carthage  increased  in  im- 
portance, the  sea-trade  of  Phoenicia  was  to  a  certain  extent 
checked.  The  commerce  of  the  Euxine  and  the  .^gean 
passed  almost  wholly  into  the  hands  of  the  alien  Hellenes; 
that  of  the  Western  Mediterranean  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean 
had  to  be  shared  with  the  daughter  state.  Meanwhile,  however, 
in  consequence  of  the  more  settled  condition  of  Western  Asia, 
first  under  the  later  Assyrian,  and  then  under  the  Babylonian 
monarchs,  the  land  trade  received  a  considerable  development. 
A  line  of  traffic  was  established  with  Armenia  and  Cappa- 
docia,  and  Phoenician  manufactures  were  exchanged  for  the 
horses,  mules,  slaves,  and  brazen  or  copper  utensils  of  those 
regions.  Another  line  passed  by  Tadmor,  or  Palmyra,  to 
Thapsacus,  whence  it  branched  on  the  one  hand  through  Up- 
per Mesopotamia  to  Assyria,  on  the  other  down  the  Euphrates 
valley  to  Babylon  and  the  Persian  Gulf.  Whether  a  third 
line  traversed  the  Arabian  peninsula  from  end  to  end  for  the 
sake  of  the  Yemen  spices  may  be  doubted ;  but,  at  any  rate, 
communication  must  have  been  kept  up  by  land  with  the 
friendly  Jerusalem,  and  with  the  Red  Sea,  which  was  certainly 
frequented  by  Phoenician  fleets. 

The  Phoenician  commerce  was  chiefly  a  carrying  trade ;  but 
there  were  also  a  few  productions  of  their  own  in  which  their 
traffic  was  considerable.  The  most  famous  of  these  was  the 
purple  dye,  which  they  obtained  from  two  shell-fish,  the  buc- 
cinum  and  the  murex,  and  by  the  use  of  which  they  gave  a 
high  value  to  their  textile  fabrics.  Another  was  glass,  whereof 
they  claimed  the  discovery,  and  which  they  manufactured  into 
various  articles  of  use  and  ornament.  They  were  also  skilful 
in  metallurgy ;  and  their  bronzes,  their  gold  and  silver  vessels, 
and  other  works  in  metal,  had  a  high  repute.  Altogether,  they 
have  a  claim  to  be  considered  one  of  the  most  ingenious  of  the 


nations  of  antiquity,  though  we  must  not  ascribe  to  them  the 
invention  of  letters  or  the  possession  of  any  remarkable  artistic 


Syria,  prior  to  its  formation  into  a  Persian  satrapy,  had  at 
no  time  any  political  unity.  During  the  Assyrian  period  it  was 
divided  into  at  least  five  principal  states,  some  of  which  were 
mere  loose  confederacies.  The  five  states  were — i.  The  north- 
em  Hittites.  Chief  city,  Carchemish  (probably  identical  with 
the  later  Mabog,  now  Bambuch).  2.  The  Patena,  on  the  lower 
Orontes.  Chief  city,  Kinalua.  3.  The  people  of  Hamath,  in 
the  Coele-Syrian  valley,  on  the  upper  Orontes.  Chief  city, 
Hamath  (now  Hamah).  4.  The  southern  Hittites,  in  the  tract 
south  of  Hamath.  5.  The  Syrians  of  Damascus,  in  the  Anti- 
Libanus,  and  the  fertile  country  between  that  range  and  the 
desert.    Chief  city,  Damascus,  on  the  Abana  (Barada). 

Of  these  states  the  one  which  was,  if  not  the  most  powerful, 
yet  at  any  rate  the  most  generally  known,  was  Syria  of  Damas- 
cus. The  city  itself  was  as  old  as  the  time  of  Abraham.  The 
state,  which  was  powerful  enough,  about  B.C.  1000,  to  escape 
absorption  into  the  empire  of  Solomon,  continued  to  enjoy 
independence  down  to  the  time  of  Tiglath-pileser  H.,  and  was 
a  formidable  neighbor  to  the  Jewish  and  Israelite  monarchs. 
After  the  capture  by  Tiglath-pileser,  about  B.C.  732,  a  time 
of  great  weakness  and  depression  ensued.  One  or  two  feeble 
attempts  at  revolt  were  easily  crushed ;  after  which,  for  a  while, 
Damascus  wholly  disappears  from  history. 


The  history  of  the  Jews  and  Israelites  is  known  to  us  in  com- 
pleter sequence  and  in  greater  detail  than  that  of  any  other 
people  of  equal  antiquity,  from  the  circumstance  that  there  has 
been  preserved  to  our  day  so  large  a  portion  of  their  literature. 
The  Jews  became  familiar  with  writing  during  their  sojourn 
in  Egypt,  if  not  even  earlier;  and  kept  records  of  the  chief 
events  in  their  national  life  from  that  time  almost  uninterrupt- 
edly.   From  the  sacred  character  which  attached  to  many  of 


their  historical  books,  peculiar  care  was  taken  of  them ;  and 
the  result  is  that  they  have  come  down  to  us  nearly  in  their 
original  form.  Besides  this,  a  large  body  of  their  ancient  poesy 
is  still  extant,  and  thus  it  becomes  possible  to  describe  at  length 
not  merely  the  events  of  their  civil  history,  but  their  manners, 
customs,  and  modes  of  thought. 

The  history  of  the  Jewish  state  commences  with  the  Exodus, 
which  is  variously  dated,  at  B.C.  1652  (Poole),  B.C.  1491 
(Ussher),  or  B.C.  1320  (Bunsen,  Lepsius).  The  long  chronol- 
ogy is,  on  the  whole,  to  be  preferred.  We  may  conveniently 
divide  the  history  into  three  periods. 

Periods.  B.C. 

I.  From  the  Exodus  to  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy    1650-1095 
II.  From  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy  to  the  sep- 
aration into  two  kingdoms 1095-975 

III.  From  the  separation  of  the  kingdoms  to  the  captivity 

under  Nebuchadnezzar 975-586 

During  the  First  Period  the  Jews  regarded  themselves  as 
under  a  theocracy  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  policy  of  the  nation 
was  directed  in  all  difficult  crises  by  a  reference  to  the  Divine 
will,  which  there  was  a  recognized  mode  of  consulting.  The 
earthly  ruler,  or  rather  leader,  of  the  nation  did  not  aspire  to 
the  name  or  position  of  king,  but  was  content  to  lead  the  nation 
in  war  and  judge  it  in  peace  from  a  position  but  a  little  elevated 
above  that  of  the  mass  of  the  people.  He  obtained  his  office 
neither  by  hereditary  descent  nor  by  election,  but  was  super- 
naturally  designated  to  it  by  revelation  to  himself  or  to  an- 
other, and  exercised  it  with  the  general  consent,  having  no 
means  of  compelling  obedience.  When  once  his  authority  was 
acknowledged,  he  retained  it  during  the  remainder  of  his  life ; 
but  it  did  not  always  extend  over  the  whole  nation.  When 
he  died,  he  was  not  always  succeeded  immediately  by  another 
similar  ruler:  on  the  contrary,  there  was  often  a  considerable 
interval  during  which  the  nation  had  either  no  head,  or  ac- 
knowledged subjection  to  a  foreign  conqueror.  When  there 
was  no  head,  the  hereditary  chiefs  of  tribes  and  families  seem 
to  have  exercised  jurisdiction  and  authority  over  the  different 


The  chronology  of  this  period  is  exceedingly  uncertain,  as 
is  evident  from  the  different  dates  assigned  above  to  the 
Exodus.  The  Jews  had  different  traditions  upon  the  sub- 
ject ;  and  the  chronological  notices  in  their  sacred  books  were 
neither  complete,  nor,  apparently,  intended  for  exact  state- 
ments. The  numbers,  therefore,  in  the  subjoined  sketch  must 
be  regarded  as  merely  approximate. 

The  Second  Period  of  the  Jewish  state  comprises  three  reigns 
only — those  of  Saul,  David,  and  Solomon.  Each  of  these  was 
regarded  as  having  lasted  exactly  forty  years ;  and  thus  the 
entire  duration  of  the  single  monarchy  was  reckoned  at  120 
years.  The  progress  of  the  nation  during  this  brief  space  is 
most  remarkable.  When  Saul  ascends  the  throne  the  condi- 
tion of  the  people  is  but  little  advanced  beyond  the  point  which 
was  reached  when  the  tribes  under  Joshua  took  possession  of 
the  Promised  Land.  Pastoral  and  agricultural  occupations 
still  engross  the  attention  of  the  Israelites ;  simple  habits  pre- 
vail ;  there  is  no  wealthy  class ;  the  monarch,  like  the  Judges, 
has  no  court,  no  palace,  no  extraordinary  retinue ;  he  is  still 
little  more  than  leader  in  war,  and  chief  judge  in  time  of  peace. 
Again,  externally,  the  nation  is  as  weak  as  ever.  The  Ammo- 
nites on  the  one  side,  and  the  Philistines  on  the  other,  ravage 
its  territory  at  their  pleasure ;  and  the  latter  people  have  en- 
croached largely  upon  the  Israelite  borders,  and  reduced  the 
Israelites  to  such  a  point  of  depression  that  they  have  no  arms, 
oflFensive  or  defensive,  nor  even  any  workers  in  iron.  Under 
Solomon,  on  the  contrary,  within  a  century  of  this  time  of 
weakness,  the  Israelites  have  become  the  paramount  race  in 
Syria.  An  empire  has  been  formed  which  reaches  from  the 
Euphrates  at  Thapsacus  to  the  Red  Sea  and  the  borders  of 
Egypt.  Numerous  monarchs  are  tributary  to  the  Great  King 
who  reigns  at  Jerusalem ;  vast  sums  in  gold  and  silver  flow 
into  the  treasury ;  magnificent  edifices  are  constructed ;  trade 
is  established  both  with  the  East  and  with  the  West ;  the  court 
of  Jerusalem  vies  in  splendor  with  those  of  Nineveh  and  Mem- 
phis ;  luxury  has  invaded  the  country :  a  seraglio  on  the  largest 
scale  has  been  formed ;  and  the  power  and  greatness  of  the 
prince  has  become  oppressive  to  the  bulk  of  the  people.  Such 
a  rapid  growth  was  necessarily  exhaustive  of  the  nation's 


strength;  and  the  decline  of  the  Israelites  as  a  people  dates 
from  the  division  of  the  kingdom. 

Saul,  divinely  pointed  out  to  Samuel,  is  anointed  by  him, 
and  afterwards  accepted  by  the  people  upon  the  casting  of  lots. 
He  is  remarkable  for  his  comeliness  and  lofty  stature.  In  his 
first  year  he  defeats  the  Ammonites,  who  had  overrun  the  land 
of  Gilead.  He  then  makes  war  on  the  Philistines,  and  gains 
the  great  victory  of  Michmash;  from  which  time  till  near  the 
close  of  his  reign  the  Philistines  remain  upon  the  defensive. 
He  also  attacks  the  Amalekites,  the  Moabites,  the  Edomites, 
and  the  Syrians  of  Zobah.  In  the  Amalekite  war  he  offends 
God  by  disobedience,  and  thereby  forfeits  his  right  to  the  king- 
dom. Samuel,  by  divine  command,  anoints  David,  who  is 
thenceforth  an  object  of  jealousy  and  hatred  to  the  reigning 
monarch,  but  is  protected  by  Jonathan,  his  son.  Towards  the 
close  of  Saul's  reign  the  Philistines  once  more  assume  the  of- 
fensive, under  Achish,  king  of  Oath,  and  at  Mount  Gilboa 
defeat  the  Israelites  under  Saul.  Saul,  and  all  his  sons  but  one 
(Ishbosheth),  fall  in  the  battle. 

A  temporary  division  of  the  kingdom  follows  the  death  of 
Saul.  Ishbosheth,  conveyed  across  the  Jordan  by  Abner,  is 
acknowledged  as  ruler  in  Gilead,  and  after  five  years,  during 
which  his  authority  is  extended  over  all  the  tribes  except 
Judah,  is  formally  crowned  as  King  of  Israel  at  Mahanaim. 
He  reigns  there  two  years,  when  he  is  murdered.  Meanwhile 
David  is  made  king  by  his  own  tribe,  Judah,  and  reigns  at 

On  the  death  of  Ishbosheth,  David  became  king  of  the  whole 
nation.  His  first  act  was  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  which  up 
to  this  time  had  remained  in  the  possession  of  the  Jebusites. 
Having  taken  it,  he  made  it  the  seat  of  government,  built  him- 
self a  palace  there,  and,  by  removing  to  it  the  Ark  of  the  Cove- 
nant, constituted  it  the  national  sanctuary.  At  the  same  time 
a  court  was  formed  at  the  new  capital,  a  moderate  seraglio 
set  up,  and  a  royal  state  affected  unknown  hitherto  in  Israel. 

A  vast  aggrandizement  of  the  state  by  means  of  foreign  con- 
quests followed.  The  Philistines  were  chastised,  Gath  taken, 
and  the  Israelite  dominions  in  this  quarter  pushed  as  far  as 
Gaza.     Moab  was  invaded,  two-thirds  of  the  inhabitants  ex- 


terminated,  and  the  remainder  forced  to  pay  an  annual  tribute 
to  the  conqueror.  War  followed  with  Ammon,  and  with  the 
various  Syrian  states  interposed  between  the  Holy  Land  and 
the  Euphrates.  At  least  three  g^eat  battles  were  fought,  with 
the  result  that  the  entire  tract  between  the  Jordan  and  the  Eu- 
phrates was  added  to  the  Israelite  territory.  A  campaign  re- 
duced Edom,  and  extended  the  kingdom  to  the  Red  Sea.  An 
empire  was  thus  formed,  which  proved  indeed  short-lived,  but 
was  as  real  while  it  lasted  as  those  of  Assyria  or  Babylon. 

Tlie  glories  of  David's  reign  were  tarnished  by  two  re- 
bellions. The  fatal  taint  of  polygamy,  introduced  by  David 
into  the  nation,  gave  occasion  to  these  calamities,  which  arose 
from  the  mutual  jealousies  of  his  sons.  First  Absalom,  and 
then  Adonijah,  assume  the  royal  title  in  their  father's  lifetime ; 
and  pay  for  treason,  the  one  immediately,  the  other  ultimately, 
with  their  lives.  After  the  second  rebellion,  David  secures 
the  succession  to  Solomon  by  associating  him  upon  the  throne. 

The  reign  of  Solomon  is  the  culminating  point  of  Jewish 
history.  Resistance  on  the  part  of  the  conquered  states  has, 
with  scarcely  an  exception,  now  ceased,  and  the  new  king  can 
afford  to  be  "  a  man  of  peace."  The  position  of  his  kingdom 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth  is  acknowledged  by  the  neigh- 
boring powers,  and  the  reigning  Pharaoh  does  not  scruple  to 
g^ve  him  his  daughter  in  marriage.  A  great  commercial  move- 
ment follows.  By  alliance  with  Hiram  of  Tyre,  Solomon  is 
admitted  to  a  share  in  the  profits  of  Phoenician  traffic,  and  the 
vast  influx  of  the  precious  metals  into  Palestine  which  results 
from  this  arrangement  enables  the  Jewish  monarch  to  indulge 
freely  his  taste  for  ostentation  and  display.  The  court  is  recon- 
structed on  an  increased  scale.  A  new  palace  of  enlarged  di- 
mensions and  far  greater  architectural  magnificence  super- 
sedes the  palace  of  David.  The  seraglio  is  augmented,  and 
reaches  a  point  which  has  no  known  parallel.  A  throne  of 
extraordinary  grandeur  proclaims  in  language  intelligible  to 
all  the  wealth  and  greatness  of  the  empire.  Above  all,  a  sanct- 
uary for  the  national  worship  is  constructed  on  the  rock  of 
Moriah,  on  which  all  the  mechanical  and  artistic  resources  of 
the  time  are  lavished;  and  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  whose 
wanderings  have  hitherto  marked  the  unsettled  and  insecure 


condition  of  the  nation,  obtains  at  length  a  fixed  and  perma- 
nent resting-place. 

But  close  upon  the  heels  of  success  and  glory  follows  decline. 
The  trade  of  Solomon — a  State  monopoly — enriched  himself 
but  not  his  subjects.  The  taxes  which  he  imposed  on  the  prov- 
inces for  the  sustentation  of  his  enormous  court  exhausted  and 
impoverished  them.  His  employment  of  vast  masses  of  the 
people  in  forced  labors  of  an  unproductive  character  was  a 
wrongful  and  uneconomical  interference  with  industry,  which 
crippled  agriculture  and  aroused  a  strong  feeling  of  discontent. 
Local  jealousies  were  provoked  by  the  excessive  exaltation  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah.  The  enervating  influence  of  luxury  began 
to  be  felt.  Finally,  a  subtle  corruption  was  allowed  to  spread 
itself  through  all  ranks  by  the  encouragement  given  to  false 
religions,  religions  whose  licentious  and  cruel  rites  were  sub- 
versive of  the  first  principles  of  morality,  and  even  of  decency. 
The  seeds  of  the  disintegration  which  showed  itself  imme- 
diately upon  the  death  of  Solomon  were  sown  during  his  life- 
time ;  and  it  is  only  surprising  that  they  did  not  come  to  light 
earlier  and  interfere  more  seriously  with  the  prosperity  of  his 
long  reign. 

On  the  death  of  Solomon,  the  disintegrating  forces,  already 
threatening  the  unity  of  the  empire,  received,  through  the  folly 
of  his  successor,  a  sudden  accession  of  strength,  which  pre- 
cipitated the  catastrophe.  Rehoboam,  entreated  to  lighten  the 
burdens  of  the  Israelites,  declared  his  intention  of  increasing 
their  weight,  and  thus  drove  the  bulk  of  his  native  subjects 
into  rebellion.  The  disunion  of  the  conquering  people  gave 
the  conquered  tribes  an  opportunity  of  throwing  off  the  yoke, 
whereof  with  few  exceptions  they  availed  themselves.  In  lieu 
of  the  puissant  State,  which  under  David  and  Solomon  took 
rank  among  the  foremost  powers  of  the  earth,  we  have  hence- 
forth to  deal  with  two  petty  kingdoms  of  small  account,  the 
interest  of  whose  history  is  religious  rather  than  political. 

The  kingdom  of  Israel,  established  by  the  revolt  of  Jero- 
boam, comprises  ten  out  of  the  twelve  tribes,  and  reaches  from 
the  borders  of  Damascus  and  Hamath  to  within  ten  miles  of 
Jerusalem.  It  includes  the  whole  of  the  trans-Jordanic  terri- 
tory, and  exercises  lordship  over  the  adjoining  country  of 


Moab.  The  proportion  of  its  population  to  that  of  Judah 
in  the  early  times  may  be  estimated  as  two  to  one.  But  the 
advantage  of  superior  size,  fertility,  and  population  is  counter- 
balanced by  the  inferiority  of  every  Israelite  capital  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  by  the  fundamental  weakness  of  a  government  which, 
deserting  purity  of  religion,  adopts  for  expediency's  sake  an 
unauthorized  and  semi-idolatrous  worship.  In  vain  a  succes- 
sion of  Prophets,  some  of  them  endowed  with  extraordinary 
miraculous  power,  struggled  against  this  fatal  taint.  Idolatry, 
intertwined  with  the  nation's  life,  could  not  be  rooted  out. 
One  form  of  the  evil  led  on  to  other  and  worse  forms.  The 
national  strength  was  sapped;  and  it  scarcely  required  an 
attack  from  without  to  bring  the  State  to  dissolution.  The 
actual  fall,  however,  is  produced  B.C.  721,  by  the  growing 
power  of  Assyria,  which  has  even  at  an  earlier  date  forced  some 
of  the  monarchs  to  pay  tribute. 

The  separate  kingdom  of  Judah,  commencing  at  the  same 
date  with  that  of  Israel,  outlasted  it  by  considerably  more  than 
a  century.  Composed  of  two  entire  tribes  only,  with  refugees 
from  the  remainder,  and  confined  to  the  lower  and  less  fertile 
portion  of  the  Holy  Land,  it  compensated  for  these  disadvan- 
tages by  its  compactness,  its  unity,  the  strong  position  of  its 
capital,  and  the  indomitable  spirit  of  its  inhabitants,  who  felt 
themselves  the  real  "  people  of  God,"  the  true  inheritors  of  the 
marvellous  past,  and  the  only  rightful  claimants  of  the  greater 
marvels  promised  in  the  future.  Surrounded  as  it  was  by 
petty  enemies,  Philistines,  Arabians,  Ammonites,  Israelites, 
Syrians,  and  placed  in  the  pathway  between  two  mighty  pow- 
ers, Assyria  and  Egypt,  its  existence  was  continually  threat- 
ened ;  but  the  valor  of  its  people  and  the  protection  of  Divine 
Providence  preserved  it  intact  during  a  space  of  nearly  four 
centuries.  In  striking  contrast  with  the  sister  kingdom  of  the 
North,  it  preserved  during  this  long  space,  almost  without  a 
break,  the  hereditary  succession  of  its  kings,  who  followed  one 
another  in  the  direct  line  of  descent,  as  long  as  there  was  no 
foreign  intervention.  Its  elasticity  in  recovering  from  defeat 
is  most  remarkable.  Though  forced  repeatedly  to  make  ig- 
nominious terms  of  peace,  though  condemned  to  see  on  three 
occasions  its  capital  in  the  occupation  of  an  enemy,  it  rises 


from  disaster  with  its  strength  seemingly  unimpaired,  defies 
Assyria  in  one  reign,  confronts  Egypt  in  another,  and  is  only 
crushed  at  last  by  the  employment  against  it  of  the  full  force 
of  the  Babylonian  empire. 



The  continent  of  Africa  offers  a  remarkable  contrast  to  that 
of  Asia  in  every  important  physical  characteristic.  Asia  ex- 
tends itself  through  all  three  zones,  the  torrid,  the  frigid,  and 
the  temperate,  and  lies  mainly  in  the  last,  or  most  favored  of 
them.  Africa  belongs  almost  entirely  to  the  torrid  zone,  ex- 
tending only  a  little  way  north  and  south  into  those  portions 
of  the  two  temperate  zones  which  lie  nearest  to  the  tropics. 
Asia  has  a  coast  deeply  indented  with  numerous  bays  and 
gulfs ;  Africa  has  but  one  considerable  indentation — the  Gulf 
of  Guinea  on  its  western  side.  Asia,  again,  is  traversed  by  fre- 
quent and  lofty  mountain  chains,  the  sources  from  which  flow 
numerous  rivers  of  first-rate  magnitude.  Africa  has  but  two 
g^eat  rivers,  the  Nile  and  the  Niger,  and  is  deficient  in  moun- 
tains of  high  elevation.  Finally,  Asia  possesses  numerous  lit- 
toral islands  of  a  large  size ;  Africa  has  but  one  such  island, 
Madagascar;  and  even  the  islets  which  lie  off  its  coast  are, 
comparatively  speaking,  few. 

Its  equatorial  position,  its  low  elevation,  and  its  want  of  im- 
portant rivers,  render  Africa  the  hottest,  the  dryest,  and  the 
most  infertile  of  the  four  continents.  In  the  north  a  sea  of 
sand,  known  as  the  Sahara,  stretches  from  east  to  west  across 
the  entire  continent  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Red  Sea,  and 
occupies  fully  one-fifth  of  its  surface.  Smaller  tracts  of  an 
almost  equally  arid  character  occur  towards  the  south.  Much 
of  the  interior  consists  of  swampy  jungle,  impervious,  and  fatal 
to  human  life.  The  physical  characteristics  of  the  continent 
render  it  generally  unapt  for  civilization  or  for  the  growth  of 
great  states:  it  is  only  in  a  few  regions  that  Nature  wears 
a  more  benignant  aspect,  and  offers  conditions  favorable  to 
human  progress.  These  regions  are  chiefly  in  the  north  and 
4  49 


the  north-east,  in  the  near  vicinity  of  the  Mediterranean  and 
the  Red  Sea. 

It  was  only  the  more  northern  part  of  Africa  that  was  known 
to  the  ancients,  or  that  had  any  direct  bearing  on  the  history 
of  the  ancient  world.  Here  the  geographical  features  were 
very  marked  and  striking.  First,  there  lay  close  along  the 
sea-shore  a  narrow  strip  of  generally  fertile  territory,  watered 
by  streams  which  emptied  themselves  into  the  Mediterranean. 
South  of  this  was  a  tract  of  rocky  mountain,  less  fitted  for 
human  habitation,  though  in  places  producing  abundance  of 
dates.  Thirdly,  came  the  Great  Desert,  interspersed  with 
oases — islands  in  the  sea  of  sand  containing  springs  of  water 
and  a  flourishing  vegetation.  Below  the  Sahara,  and  com- 
pletely separated  by  it  from  any  political  contact  with  the  coun- 
tries of  the  north,  but  crossed  occasionally  by  caravans  for 
purposes  of  commerce,  was  a  second  fertile  region — a  land 
of  large  rivers  and  lakes,  where  there  were  cities  and  a  numer- 
ous population. 

The  western  portion  of  North  Africa  stood,  in  some  respects, 
in  marked  contrast  with  the  eastern.  Towards  the  east  the 
fertile  coast-tract  is  in  general  exceedingly  narrow,  and  spar- 
ingly watered  by  a  small  number  of  insignificant  streams.  The 
range  of  bare  rocky  hills  from  which  they  flow — the  continua- 
tion of  Atlas — is  of  low  elevation ;  and  the  Great  Desert  often 
approaches  within  a  very  short  distance  of  the  coast.  Towards 
the  west  the  lofty  range  of  Atlas,  running  at  a  considerable 
distance  (200  miles)  from  the  shore,  allows  a  broad  tract  of 
fertile  ground  to  intervene  between  its  crest  and  the  sea.  The 
range  itself  is  well  wooded,  and  gives  birth  to  many  rivers  of 
a  fair  size.  Here  states  of  importance  may  grow  up,  for  the 
resources  of  the  tract  are  great ;  the  soil  is  good ;  the  climate 
not  insalubrious ;  but  towards  the  east  Nature  has  been  a 
niggard;  and,  from  long.  10°  E.  nearly  to  long.  30°,  there 
is  not  a  single  position  where  even  a  second-rate  state  could 
long  maintain  itself. 

The  description  of  North  Africa,  which  has  been  here  given, 
holds  good  as  far  as  long.  30°  ;  but  east  of  this  line  there  com- 
mences another  and  very  different  region.  From  the  high- 
lands of  Abyssinia  and  the  g^eat  reservoirs  on  the  line  of  the 


equator,  the  Nile  rolls  down  its  vast  body  of  waters  with  a 
course  whose  general  direction  is  from  south  to  north,  and, 
meeting  the  Desert,  flows  across  it  in  a  mighty  stream,  which 
renders  this  corner  of  the  continent  the  richest  and  most  valu- 
able of  all  the  tracts  contained  in  it.  The  Nile  valley  is  3000 
miles  long,  and,  in  its  upper  portion,  of  unknown  width.  When 
it  enters  the  Desert,  about  lat.  16°,  its  width  contracts;  and 
from  the  sixth  cataract  down  to  Cairo,  the  average  breadth  of 
the  cultivable  soil  does  not  exceed  fifteen  miles.  This  soil, 
however,  is  of  the  best  possible  quality;  and  the  possession 
of  the  strip  on  either  side  of  the  river,  and  of  the  broader  tract 
known  as  the  Delta,  about  its  mouth,  naturally  constitutes 
the  power  which  holds  it  a  great  and  important  state.  The 
proximity  of  this  part  of  Africa  to  Western  Asia  and  to  Europe, 
its  healthiness  and  comparatively  temperate  climate,  likewise 
favored  the  development  in  this  region  of  an  early  civilization 
and  the  formation  of  a  monarchy  which  played  an  important 
part  in  the  history  of  the  ancient  world. 

Above  the  point  at  which  the  Nile  enters  the  Desert,  on  the 
right  or  east  bank  of  the  stream,  occurs  another  tract,  physi- 
cally very  remarkable,  and  capable  of  becoming  politically  of 
high  consideration.  Here  there  is  interposed  between  the  main 
stream  of  the  Nile  and  the  Red  Sea  an  elevated  table-land,  8000 
feet  above  the  ocean-level,  surrounded  and  intersected  by 
mountains,  which  rise  in  places  to  the  height  of  15,000  feet. 
These  lofty  masses  attract  and  condense  the  vapors  that  float 
in  from  the  neighboring  sea ;  and  the  country  is  thus  subject 
to  violent  rains,  which  during  the  summer  months  fill  the  river- 
courses,  and,  flowing  down  them  to  the  Nile,  are  the  cause  of 
that  stream's  periodical  overflow,  and  so  of  the  rich  fertility 
of  Egypt.  The  abundance  of  moisture  renders  the  plateau 
generally  productive ;  and  the  region,  which  may  be  regarded 
as  containing  from  200,000  to  250,000  square  miles,  is  thus 
one  well  capable  of  nourishing  and  sustaining  a  power  of  the 
first  magnitude. 

The  nations  inhabiting  Northern  Africa  in  the  times  an- 
terior to  Cyrus  were,  according  to  the  belief  of  the  Greeks, 
five.  These  were  the  Egfvptians,  the  Ethiopians,  the  Greeks, 
the  Phoenicians,  and  the  Libyans. 




To  the  Egyptians  belonged  the  Nile  valley  from  lat.  24"  to 
the  coast,  together  with  the  barren  region  between  that  valley 
and  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  fertile  tract  of  the  Faioom  about 
Moeris,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  stream.  Its  most  important 
portion  was  the  Delta,  which  contained  about  8000  square 
miles,  and  was  studded  with  cities  of  note.  The  chief  towns 
were,  however,  in  the  narrow  valley.  These  were  Memphis, 
not  much  above  the  apex  of  the  Delta,  and  Thebes,  about  lat. 
26°.  Besides  these,  the  places  of  importance  were,  in  Upper 
Egypt,  Elephantine  and  Chemmis,  or  Panopolis ;  in  the  lower 
country,  Heliopolis,  Sais,  Sebennytus,  Mendes,  Tanis,  Bubas- 
tis,  and  Pelusium.  The  Nile  was  the  only  Egyptian  river ;  but 
at  the  distance  of  about  ninety  miles  from  the  sea,  the  great 
stream  divided  itself  into  three  distinct  channels,  known  as  the 
Canobic,  the  Sebennytic,  and  the  Pelusiac  branches,  while, 
lower  down,  these  channels  further  subdivided  themselves,  so 
that  in  the  time  of  Herodotus  the  Nile  waters  reached  the 
Mediterranean  by  seven  distinct  mouths.  Egypt  had  one  large 
and  several  smaller  lakes.  The  large  lake,  known  by  the  name 
of  Moeris,  lay  on  the  west  side  of  the  Nile,  in  lat.  29°  50'. 
It  was  believed  to  be  artificial,  but  was  really  a  natural  de- 


The  Ethiopians  held  the  valley  of  the  Nile  above  Egypt,  and 
the  whole  of  the  plateau  from  which  descend  the  great  Nile 
affluents,  the  modern  country  of  Abyssinia.  Their  chief  city 
was  Meroe.  Little  was  known  of  the  tract  by  the  ancients; 
but  it  was  believed  to  be  excessively  rich  in  gold.  A  tribe 
called  Troglodyte  Ethiopians — i.  e.,  Ethiopians  who  burrowed 
underground — is  mentioned  as  inhabiting  the  Sahara  where 
it  adjoins  upon  Fezzan. 



The  Greeks  had  colonized  the  portion  of  North  Africa  which 
approached  most  nearly  to  the  Peloponnese,  having  settled  at 
Cyrene  about  B.  C.  630,  and  at  Barca  about  seventy  years  after- 
wards. They  had  also  a  colony  at  Naucratis  in  Egypt,  and 
perhaps  a  settlement  at  the  greater  Oasis. 


The  Libyans  possessed  the  greater  part  of  Northern  Africa, 
extending,  as  they  did,  from  the  borders  of  Eg^pt  to  the  At- 
lantic Ocean,  and  from  the  Mediterranean  to  the  Great  Desert. 
They  were  divided  into  a  number  of  tribes,  among  which  the 
following  were  the  most  remarkable:  the  Adyrmachidae,  who 
bordered  on  Egypt,  the  Nasamonians  on  the  greater  Syrtis, 
the  Garamantes  in  the  modem  Fezzan,  and  the  Atlantes  in 
the  range  of  Atlas.  Most  of  these  races  were  nomadic ;  but 
some  of  the  more  western  cultivated  the  soil,  and,  consequently, 
had  fixed  abodes.  Politically,  all  these  tribes  were  excessively 


The  Carthaginians,  or  Liby-Phcenicians — immigrants  into 
Africa,  like  the  Greeks — had  fixed  themselves  in  the  fertile 
region  north  of  the  Atlas  chain,  at  the  point  where  it  approaches 
nearest  to  Sicily.  Here  in  a  cluster  lay  the  important  towns 
of  Carthage,  Utica,  Hippo  Zaritus,  Tunis,  and  Zama  Regia, 
while  a  little  removed  were  Adrumetum,  Leptis,  and  Hippo 
Regius.  The  entire  tract  was  fertile  and  well  watered,  inter- 
sected by  numerous  ranges,  spurs  from  the  main  chain  of 
Atlas.  Its  principal  river  was  the  Bagrada  (now  Majerdah), 
which  emptied  itself  into  the  sea  a  little  to  the  north-west  of 
Carthage.  The  entire  coast  was  indented  by  numerous  bays ; 
and  excellent  land-locked  harbors  were  formed  by  salt  lakes 
connected  with  the  sea  by  narrow  channels.  Such  was  the 
Hipponites  Palus  (L.  Benzart)  near  Hippo  Zaritus,  and  the 
great  harbor  of  Carthage,  now  that  of  Tunis.      Next  to  the 


Nile  valley,  this  was  the  portion  of  Northern  Africa  most  fa- 
vored by  Nature,  and  best  suited  for  the  habitation  of  a  great 

The  early  estabUshment  of  monarchical  government  in 
Egypt  is  indicated  in  Scripture  by  the  mention  of  a  Pharaoh 
as  contemporary  with  Abraham,  The  full  account  which  is 
given  of  the  general  character  of  the  kingdom  administered 
by  Joseph  suggests  as  the  era  of  its  foundation  a  date  consid- 
erably more  ancient  than  that  of  Abraham's  visit.  The  priests 
themselves  claimed  for  the  monarchy,  in  the  time  of  Herodo- 
tus, an  antiquity  of  above  ii,ooo  years.  Manetho,  writing 
after  the  reduction  of  his  country  by  the  Macedonians,  was 
more  moderate,  assigning  to  the  thirty  dynasties  which,  ac- 
cording to  him,  preceded  the  Macedonian  conquest,  a  number 
of  years  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  rather  more  than  5000, 
The  several  items  which  produce  this  amount  may  be  correct, 
or  nearly  so;  but,  if  their  sum  is  assumed  as  measuring  the 
duration  of  the  monarchy,  the  calculation  will  be  largely  in 
excess;  for  the  Egyptian  monuments  show  that  Manetho's 
dynasties  were  often  reigning  at  the  same  time  in  different 
parts  of  the  country.  The  difficulty  of  determining  the  true 
chronology  of  early  Egypt  arises  from  an  uncertainty  as  to 
the  extent  to  which  Manetho's  dynasties  were  contemporary. 
The  monuments  prove  a  certain  amount -of  contemporaneity. 
But  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  they  exhaust  the  subject, 
or  do  more  than  indicate  a  practice  the  extent  of  which  must 
be  determined,  partly  by  examination  of  our  documents,  partly 
by  reasonable  conjecture. 

A  careful  examination  of  the  names  and  numbers  in  Mane- 
tho's lists,  and  a  laborious  investigation  of  the  monuments, 
have  led  the  best  English  Egyptologers  to  construct,  or  adopt, 
the  subjoined  scheme,  as  that  which  best  expresses  the  real 
position  in  which  Manetho's  first  seventeen  dynasties  stood 
to  one  another. 

It  will  be  seen  that,  according  to  this  scheme,  there  were 
in  Egypt  during  the  early  period,  at  one  time  two,  at  another 
three,  at  another  five  or  even  six,  parallel  or  contemporaneous 
kingdoms,  established  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  For 
example,  while  the  first  and  second  dynasties  of  Manetho  were 













Memphitc.   eJephan- 





Dynasty,  |  Dvnasty, 
Herade-  ToebaiH. 


lath  14th 

Ehmasty,  Dywuty, 
Tnebaiu.    Xoitea. 



tsth       I       i6ih 
Dynasty,  |   Dynasty, 
Shepherds.  Sbepberas. 

ruling  at  This,  his  third,  fourth,  and  sixth  bore  sway  at  Mem- 
phis ;  and,  during  a  portion  of  this  time,  his  fifth  dynasty  was 
ruHng  at  Elephantine,  his  ninth  at  Heracleopolis,  and  his  elev- 
enth at  Thebes  or  Diospolis.  And  the  same  general  condition 
of  things  prevailed  till  near  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century 
B.C.,  when  Egypt  was,  probably  for  the  first  time,  united  into 
a  single  kingdom,  ruled  from  the  one  centre,  Thebes. 

It  is  doubtful  how  far  the  names  and  numbers  in  Mane- 
tho's  first  and  third  dynasties  are  historical.  The  correspond- 
ence of  the  name,  Menes  (M'na),  with  that  of  other  traditional 
founders  of  nations,  or  first  men — with  the  Manes  of  Lydia, 
the  Phrygian  Manis,  the  Cretan  Minos,  the  Indian  Menu,  the 
German  Mannus,  and  the  like — raises  a  suspicion  that  here  too 
we  are  dealing  with  a  fictitious  personage,  an  ideal  and  not 



a  real  founder.  The  improbably  long  reign  assigned  to  M'na 
(sixty  or  sixty-two  years),  and  his  strange  death — he  is  said 
to  have  been  killed  by  a  hippopotamus — increase  the  doubt 
which  the  name  causes.  M'na's  son  and  successor,  Athothis 
(Thoth),  the  Egyptian  .^^sculapius,  seems  to  be  equally  myth- 
ical. The  other  names  are  such  as  may  have  been  borne  by 
real  kings,  and  it  is  possible  that  in  Manetho's  time  they  existed 
on  monuments ;  but  the  chronology,  which,  in  the  case  of  the 
first  dynasty,  gives  an  average  of  thirty-two  or  thirty-three 
years  to  a  reign,  is  evidently  in  excess,  and  can  not  be  trusted. 

First  Dynasty  (Thinite). 


1.  Menes 

2.  Athothis  (his  son) . , . 

3.  Kenkenes  (his  son). . 

4.  Uenephes  (his  son)  . 

5.  Usaphaedus  (his  son) 

6.  Miebidus  (his  son) . . 

7.  Semempses  (his  son). 

8.  Bieneches  (his  son) , . 


Euseb.      Afric. 






Third  Dynasty  (Memphite). 


1.  Necherophes 

2.  Tosorthrus.. 

3.  Tyreis 

4.  Mesochris  . . 

5.  Suphis 

6.  Tosertasis  . . 

7.  Aches 

8.  Sephuris. . . . 

9.  Kerpheres . . 


Euseb.      Afric, 







With  Manetho's  second  and  fourth  dynasties  we  reach  the 
time  of  contemporary  monuments,  and  feel  ourselves  on  sure 
historical  ground.  The  tomb  of  Koeechus  (Ke-ke-ou),  the 
second  king  of  the  second  dynasty,  has  been  found  near  the 
pyramids  of  Gizeh;  and  Soris  (Shure),  Suphis  I.  (Shufu), 
Suphis  II.  (Nou-shufu),  and  Mencheres  (Men-ka-re),  the  first 
four  kings  of  the  fourth,  are  known  to  us  from  several  inscrip- 
tions. There  is  distinct  monumental  evidence  that  the  second, 
fourth,  and  fifth  dynasties  were  contemporary.  The  fourth  was 
the  principal  one  of  the  three,  and  bore  sway  at  Memphis  over 
Lower  Egypt,  while  the  second  ruled  Middle  Egypt  from 
This,  and  the  fifth  Upper  Egypt  from  Elephantine.  Probably 
the  kings  of  the  second  and  fifth  dynasties  were  connected  by 
blood  with  those  of  the  fourth,  and  held  their  respective  crowns 
by  permission  of  the  Memphite  sovereigns.     The  tombs  of 


monarchs  belonging  to  all  three  dynasties  exist  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Memphis ;  and  there  is  even  some  doubt  whether 
a  king  of  the  fifth,  Shafre,  was  not  the  true  founder  of  the 
"  Second  Pyramid  "  near  that  city. 

The  date  of  the  establishment  at  Memphis  of  the  fourth 
dynasty  is  given  variously  as  B.C.  3209  (Bunsen),  B.C.  2450 
(Wilkinson),  and  B.C.  2440  (Poole).  And  the  time  during 
which  it  occupied  the  throne  is  estimated  variously  at  240,  210, 
and  155  years.  The  Egyptian  practice  of  association  is  a  fertile 
source  of  chronological  confusion;  and  all  estimates  of  the 
duration  of  a  dynasty,  so  long  as  the  practice  continued,  are 
mainly  conjectural.  Still  the  comparatively  low  dates  of  the 
English  Egfyptologers  are  on  every  ground  preferable  to  the 
higher  dates  of  the  Germans ;  and  the  safest  conclusion  that 
can  be  drawn  from  a  comparison  of  Manetho  with  the  monu- 
ments seems  to  be,  that  a  powerful  monarchy  was  established 
at  Memphis  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  twenty-fifth  century 
B.C.,  which  was  in  some  sort  paramount  over  the  whole 

It  is  evident  from  the  monuments  that  the  civilization  of 
Egypt  at  this  early  date  was  in  many  respects  of  an  advanced 
order.  A  high  degree  of  mechanical  science  and  skill  is  im- 
plied in  the  quarrying,  transporting,  and  raising  into  place  of 
the  huge  blocks  whereof  the  pyramids  are  composed,  and  con- 
siderable mathematical  knowledge  in  the  emplacement  of  each 
pyramid  so  as  exactly  to  face  the  cardinal  points.  Writing 
appears  in  no  rudimentary  form,  but  in  such  a  shape  as  to 
imply  long  use.  Besides  the  hieroglyphics,  which  are  well  and 
accurately  cut,  a  cursive  character  is  seen  on  some  of  the 
blocks,  the  precursor  of  the  later  hieratic.  The  reed-pen  and 
inkstand  are  among  the  hieroglyphics  employed ;  and  the 
scribe  appears,  pen  in  hand,  in  the  paintings  on  the  tombs, 
making  notes  on  linen  or  papyrus.  The  drawing  of  human 
and  animal  figures  is  fully  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  that  of 
later  times;  and  the  trades  represented  are  nearly  the  same 
as  are  found  under  the  Ramesside  kings.  Altogether  it  is 
apparent  that  the  Egyptians  of  the  Pyramid  period  were  not 
just  emerging  out  of  barbarism,  but  were  a  people  who  had 
made  very  considerable  progress  in  the  arts  of  life. 



The  governmental  system  was  not  of  the  simple  character 
which  is  found  in  kingdoms  recently  formed  out  of  village  or 
tribe  communities,  but  had  a  complicated  organization  of  the 
sort  which  usually  grows  up  with  time.  Egypt  was  divided 
into  nomes,  each  of  which  had  its  governor.  The  military  and 
civil  services  were  separate,  and  each  possessed  various  grades 
and  kinds  of  functionaries.  The  priest  caste  was  as  distinct 
as  in  later  times,  and  performed  much  the  same  duties. 

Aggressive  war  had  begun  to  be  waged.  The  mineral  treas- 
ures of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  excited  the  cupidity  of  the  Mem- 
phitic  kings,  and  Soris,  the  first  king  of  the  dynasty,  seems 
to  have  conquered  and  occupied  it.  The  copper  mines  of  Wady 
Maghara  and  Sarabit-el-Kadim  were  worked  by  the  great  Pyr- 
amid monarchs,  whose  operations  there  were  evidently  exten- 
sive. Whether  there  is  any  ground  for  regarding  the  kinds 
in  question  as  especially  tyrannical,  may  perhaps  be  doubted. 
One  of  them  was  said  to  have  written  a  sacred  book,  and  an- 
other (according  to  Herodotus)  had  the  character  of  a  mild 
and  good  monarch.  The  pyramids  may  have  been  built  by  the 
labor  of  captives  taken  in  war,  in  which  case  the  native  popu- 
lation would  not  have  suffered  by  their  erection. 


Branch  Dynasty. 
II.  Thinite. 


1.  Boethus  or  Bochus  38 

2.  Kceechus  (Ke-ke- 

ou) 39 

3.  Binothris 47 

4.  Tlas 17 

5.  Sethenes 41 

6.  Chasres 17 

7.  Nephercheres 25 

8.  Sesochris. 48 

9.  Cheneres 30 


Chief  or  Stem  Dynasty. 
IV.  Memphite. 


1.  Soris 29 

2.  Suphis  I ^ 

3.  Suphis  II.  (broth-  V66 

er) ) 

4.  Mencheres  (son  of 

Suphis  I.) 63 

5.  Ratoises 25 

6.  Bicheris 22 

7.  Sebercheres 7 

8.  Thamphthis 9 

Branch  Dynasty.    V.  Ele- 


1.  Usercheres     (Osir- 

keO 28 

2.  Sephres  (Shafr^) . .   13 

3.  Nephercheres 

(Nofr-ir-ke-re)  . .   20 

4.  Sisires  (Osir-n-r^).     7 

5.  Chares 20 

6.  Rathures 44 

7.  Mencheres 9 

8.  Tancheres 44 

9.  Onnus  (U-nas). ...  33 


The  fourth  or  "  pyramid  "  dynasty  was  succeeded  at  Mem- 
phis by  the  sixth  Manethonian  dynasty,  about  B.C.  2220.    The 



second  and  fifth  still  bore  sway  at  This  and  Elephantine ;  while 
wholly  new  and  probably  independent  dynasties  now  started 
up  at  Heracleopolis  and  Thebes.  The  Memphitic  kings  lost 
their  pre-eminence.  Egypt  was  broken  up  into  really  separate 
kingdoms,  among  which  the  Theban  gradually  became  the 
most  powerful. 



VI.  MBMrHrrx. 

V.  Elkphantink. 

IX.  Hkra- 

XI.  Thbban. 

under  the 
last  three 


1.  Othois 30 

(a.  Phios 53 

3.  Methosuphis 7] 

4.  Phiops(Pepi) loo 

5.  Menthesupnis i 

6.  Nitocris  (Neit  akret)  is 




(Muntopt  I. 

Series  of 


Muntopt  II.). 

Sixteen  kings. 

17.  Ammenemes 

The  weakness  of  Egypt,  thus  parcelled  out  into  five  king- 
doms, tempted  foreign  attack ;  and,  about  B.C.  2080,  or  a  little 
later,  a  powerful  enemy  entered  Lower  Egypt  from  the  north- 
east, and  succeeded  in  destroying  the  Memphite  kingdom,  and 
obtaining  possession  of  almost  the  whole  country  below  lat. 
29°  30'.  These  were  the  so-called  Hyk-sos,  or  Shepherd  Kings, 
noAiades  from  either  Syria  or  Arabia,  who  exercised  with  ex- 
treme severity  all  the  rights  of  conquerors,  burning  the  cities, 
razing  the  temples  to  the  ground,  exterminating  the  male 
Egyptian  population,  and  making  slaves  of  the  women  and 
children.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  at  least  two  Shepherd 
dynasties  (Manetho's  fifteenth  and  sixteenth)  were  established 
simultaneously  in  the  conquered  territory,  the  fifteenth  reign- 
ing at  Memphis,  and  the  sixteenth  either  in  the  Delta,  or  at 
Avaris  (Pelusium?).  Native  Egfyptian  dynasties  continued, 
however,  to  hold  much  of  the  country.  The  ninth  (Heracleop- 
olite)  held  the  Faioom  and  the  Nile  valley  southward  as  far 
as  Hermopolis ;  the  twelfth  bore  sway  at  Thebes ;  the  fifth 
continued  undisturbed  at  Elephantine.  In  the  heart,  more- 
over, of  the  Shepherd  conquests,  a  new  native  kingdom  sprang 
up;  and  the  fourteenth  (Xoite)  dynasty  maintained  itself 
throughout  the  whole  period  of  Hyk-sos  ascendency  in  the 
most  central  portion  of  the  Delta. 




ABOUT  B.C.  S080  TO  1900. 

V.  Elk- 


IX.  Hera- 


XII.  Theban. 





till   about 
ac.  1850.) 



1.  Sesonchosis,   son  of 

Ammenemes    (Se- 
sortasen  I.) 46 

2.  Ammenemes  II. 

(Amun-m-hfe  II.)..  38 

3.  Sesostris      (Sesorta- 

sen  II.) 48 

4.  [La]mares  (Am-un- 

m-W  III.) 8 

5.  Ameres 8 

6.  Ammenemes   III. 

(Amun-m-he  IV.).     8 

7.  Skemiophris  (his  sis- 

ter)      4 

XIII.  Theban. 

six  kings 
in   484 


1.  Salatis. . .  19 

2.  Bnon 44 

3.  Apachnas  36 

4.  Apophis .  61 

5.  Jannas...  50 

6.  Asses 49 


kings  in 
518  years. 

Simultaneously  with  the  irruption  of  the  Shepherds  occurred 
an  increase  of  the  power  of  Thebes,  which,  under  the  monarchs 
of  the  twelfth  dynasty,  the  Sesortasens  and  Amun-m-hes  ac- 
quired a  paramount  authority  over  all  Egypt  from  the  borders 
of  Ethiopia  to  the  neighborhood  of  Memphis.  The  Elephan- 
tine and  Heracleopolite  dynasties,  though  continuing,  became 
subordinate.  Even  Heliopolis,  below  Memphis,  owned  the 
authority  of  these  powerful  monarchs,  who  held  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula,  and  carried  their  arms  into  Arabia  and  Ethiopia. 
Amun-m-he  III.,  who  seems  to  be  the  Maris  (or  Lamaris) 
of  Manetho  and  the  Mceris  of  Herodotus,  constructed  the 
remarkable  work  in  the  Faioom  known  as  the  Labyrinth.  Se- 
sortasen  I.  built  numerous  temples,  and  erected  an  obelisk. 
Architecture  and  the  arts  generally  flourished ;  irrigation  was 
extended ;  and  the  oppression  of  Lower  Egypt  under  the  rude 
Shepherd  kings  seemed  for  a  considerable  time  to  have  aug- 
mented, rather  than  diminished,  the  prosperity  of  the  Upper 

But  darker  days  arrived.  The  Theban  monarchs  of  the  thir- 
teenth dynasty,  less  warlike  or  less  fortunate  than  their  prede- 
cessors, found  themselves  unable  to  resist  the  terrible  Shep- 
herds, and,  quitting  their  capital,  fled  into  Ethiopia,  while 
the  invaders  wreaked  their  vengeance  on  the  memorials  of  the 
Sesortasens.     Probably,  after  a  while,  the  refugees  returned 


and  took  up  the  position  of  tributaries,  a  position  which  must 
also  have  been  occupied  by  all  the  other  native  monarchs  who 
still  maintained  themselves,  excepting  possibly  the  Xoites, 
who  may  have  found  the  marshes  of  the  Delta  an  effectual 
protection.  The  complete  establishment  of  the  authority  of 
the  Shepherds  may  be  dated  about  B.C.  1900.  Their  do- 
minion lasted  till  about  B.C.  1525.  The  seventh  and  eighth 
(Memphitic)  dynasties,  the  tenth  (Heracleopolite),  and  the 
seventeenth  (Shepherd)  belong  to  this  interval.  This  is  the 
darkest  period  of  Egyptian  history.  The  Shepherds  left  no 
monuments ;  and  during  nearly  300  years  the  very  names  of 
the  kings  are  unknown  to  us. 

A  new  day  breaks  upon  us  with  the  accession  to  power  of 
Manetho's  eighteenth  dynasty,  about  B.C.  1525.  A  great  na- 
tional movement,  headed  by  Amosis  (Ames  or  Aahmes),  king 
of  the  Thebaid,  drove  the  foreign  invaders,  after  a  stout  con- 
flict, from  the  soil  of  Egypt,  and,  releasing  the  country  from  the 
incubus  which  had  so  long  lain  upon  it,  allowed  the  genius  of 
the  people  free  play.  The  most  flourishing  period  of  Egyptian 
history  followed.  The  Theban  king,  who  had  led  the  move- 
ment, received  as  his  reward  the  supreme  authority  over  the 
whole  country,  a  right  which  was  inherited  by  his  successors. 
Egypt  was  henceforth,  until  the  time  of  the  Ethiopic  conquest, 
a  single  centralized  monarchy.  Contemporary  dynasties 
ceased.  Egyptian  art  attained  its  highest  perfection.  The 
great  temple-palaces  of  Thebes  were  built.  Numerous  obelisks 
were  erected.  Internal  prosperity  led  to  aggressive  wars. 
Ethiopia,  Arabia,  and  Syria  were  invaded.  The  Euphrates 
was  crossed;  and  a  portion  of  Mesopotamia  added  to  the 

The  decline  of  Egypt  under  the  twentieth  dynasty  is  very 
marked.  We  can  ascribe  it  to  nothing  but  internal  decay — 
a  decay  proceeding  mainly  from  those  natural  causes  which 
are  always  at  work,  compelling  nations  and  races,  like  indi- 
viduals, after  they  have  reached  maturity,  to  sink  in  vital  force, 
to  become  debilitated,  and  finally  to  perish.  Under  the  nine- 
teenth dynasty  Egypt  reached  her  highest  pitch  of  greatness, 
internal  and  external;  under  the  twentieth  she  rapidly  sank, 
alike  in  military  power,  in  artistic  genius,  and  in  taste.    For 


a  space  of  almost  two  centuries,  from  about  B.C.  1170  to  990, 
she  scarcely  undertook  a  single  important  enterprise;  her 
architectural  efforts  during  the  whole  of  this  time  were  mean, 
and  her  art  without  spirit  or  life.  Subsequently,  in  the  space 
between  B.C.  990  and  the  Persian  conquest,  B.C.  525,  she 
experienced  one  or  two  "  revivals ;  "  but  the  reaction  on  these 
occasions,  being  spasmodic  and  forced,  exhausted  rather  than 
recruited  her  strength ;  nor  did  the  efforts  made,  great  as  they 
were,  suffice  to  do  more  than  check  for  a  while  the  decadence 
which  they  could  not  avert. 

Among  the  special  causes  which  produced  this  unusually 
rapid  decline,  the  foremost  place  must  be  assigned  to  the  spirit 
of  caste,  and  particularly  to  the  undue  predominance  of  the 
sacerdotal  order.  It  is  true  that  castes,  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  word,  did  not  exist  in  Egypt,  since  a  son  was  not  abso- 
lutely compelled  to  follow  his  father's  profession.  But  the 
separation  of  classes  was  so  sharply  and  clearly  defined,  the 
hereditary  descent  of  professions  was  so  much  the  rule,  that  the 
system  closely  approximated  to  that  which  has  been  so  long 
established  in  India,  and  which  prevails  there  at  the  present 
day.  It  had,  in  fact,  all  the  evils  of  caste.  It  discouraged  prog- 
ress, advance,  improvement;  it  repressed  personal  ambition; 
it  produced  deadness,  flatness,  dull  and  tame  uniformity.  The 
priestly  influence,  which  pervaded  all  ranks  from  the  highest 
to  the  lowest,  was  used  to  maintain  a  conventional  standard, 
alike  in  thought,  in  art,  and  in  manners.  Any  tendency  to 
deviate  from  the  set  forms  of  the  old  religion,  that  at  any  time 
showed  itself,  was  sternly  checked.  The  inclination  of  art  to 
become  naturaUstic  was  curbed  and  subdued.  All  intercourse 
with  foreigners,  which  might  have  introduced  changes  of  man- 
ners, was  forbidden.  The  aim  was  to  maintain  things  at  a 
certain  set  level,  which  was  fixed  and  unalterable.  But,  as 
"  non  progredi  est  regredi,"  the  result  of  repressing  all  advance 
and  improvement  was  to  bring  about  a  rapid  and  general  de- 

The  growing  influence  of  the  priests,  which  seems  to  have 
reduced  the  later  monarchs  of  the  twentieth  dynasty  to 
faineants,  was  shown  still  more  markedly  in  the  accession  to 
power,  about  B.C.  1085,  of  the  priestly  dynasty  of  "  Tanites," 


who  occupy  the  twenty-first  place  in  Manetho's  Hst.  These 
kings,  who  style  themselves  "  High-priests  of  Amun,"  and 
w^ho  wear  the  priestly  costume,  seem  to  have  held  their  court 
at  Tanis  (Zoan),  in  the  Delta,  but  were  acknowledged  for 
kings  equally  in  Upper  Egypt.  It  must  have  been  to  one  of 
them  that  Hadad  fled  when  Joab  slaughtered  the  Edomites, 
and  in  their  ranks  also  must  be  sought  the  Pharaoh  who  gave 
his  daughter  in  marriage  to  Solomon.  According  to  Manetho, 
the  dynasty  held  the  throne  for  rather  more  than  a  hundred 
years ;  but  the  computation  is  thought  to  be  in  excess. 

With  Sheshonk,  the  first  king  of  the  twenty-second  dynasty, 
a  revival  of  Egyptian  power  to  a  certain  extent  occurred. 
Though  Sheshonk  himself  takes  the  title  of  "  High-priest  of 
Amun,"  having  married  the  daughter  of  Pisham  H.,  the  last 
king  of  the  sacerdotal  (twenty-first)  dynasty,  yet  beyond  this 
no  priestly  character  attaches  to  the  monarchs  of  his  house. 
Sheshonk  resumes  the  practice  of  military  expeditions,  and 
his  example  is  followed  by  one  of  the  Osorkons.  Monuments 
of  some  pretensions  are  erected  by  the  kings  of  the  line,  at 
Thebes  and  at  Bubastis  in  the  Delta,  which  latter  is  the  royal 
city  of  the  time.  The  revival,  however,  is  partial  and  short- 
lived, the  later  monarchs  of  the  dynasty  being  as  undistin- 
guished as  any  that  had  preceded  them  on  the  throne. 

The  decline  of  the  monarchy  advanced  now  with  rapid 
strides.  On  the  death  of  Takelot  H.,  a  disintegration  of  the 
kingdom  seems  to  have  taken  place.  While  the  Bubastite  line 
was  carried  on  in  a  third  Pisham  (or  Pishai)  and  a  fourth 
Sheshonk,  a  rival  line,  Manetho's  twenty-third  dynasty,  sprang 
up  at  Tanis,  and  obtained  the  chief  power.  The  kings  of  this 
line,  who  are  four  in  number,  are  wholly  undistinguished. 

A  transfer  of  the  seat  of  empire  to  Sais,  another  city  of  the 
Delta,  now  took  place.  A  king  whom  Manetho  and  Diodorus 
called  Bocchoris  (perhaps  Pehor)  ascended  the  throne.  This 
monarch,  after  he  had  reigned  forty-four  years — either  as  an 
independent  prince  or  as  a  tributary  to  Ethiopia — was  put  to 
death  by  Sabaco,  an  Ethiopian,  who  conquered  Egfypt  and 
founded  the  twenty-fifth  dynasty. 

Thus  it  appears  that  between  B.C.  730  and  665  Eg^t  was 
conquered  twice — ^first  by  the  Ethiopians,  and  then,  within 


about  sixty  years,  by  the  Assyrians.  The  native  Egyptian 
army  had  grown  to  be  weak  and  contemptible,  from  a  prac- 
tice, which  sprang  up  under  the  Sheshonks,  of  employing 
mainly  foreign  troops  in  military  expeditions.  There  was  also 
(as  has  been  observed  already)  a  general  decline  of  the  national 
spirit,  which  made  submission  to  a  foreign  yoke  less  galling 
than  it  would  have  been  at  an  earlier  date. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  at  what  exact  time  the  yoke  of  Assyria 
was  thrown  off.  Psammetichus  (Psamatik  I.),  who  seems  to 
have  succeeded  his  father,  Nechoh,  or  to  have  been  associated 
by  him,  almost  immediately  after  his  (Nechoh's)  establishment 
as  viceroy  by  Asshur-bani-pal,  counted  his  reign  from  the 
abdication  of  Tirhakah,  as  if  he  had  from  that  time  been  inde- 
pendent and  sole  king.  But  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  in 
reality  for  several  years  he  was  merely  one  of  many  rulers, 
all  equally  subject  to  the  great  monarch  of  Assyria.  The  revolt 
which  he  headed  may  have  happened  in  the  reign  of  Asshur- 
bani-pal;  but,  more  probably,  it  fell  in  that  of  his  successor. 
Perhaps  its  true  cause  was  the  shattering  of  Assyrian  power 
by  the  invasion  of  the  Scyths,  about  B.C.  632.  Psammetichus, 
by  the  aid  of  Greek  mercenaries,  and  (apparently)  after  some 
opposition  from  his  brother  viceroys,  made  himself  indepen- 
dent, and  established  his  dominion  over  the  whole  of  Egypt. 
Native  rule  was  thus  restored  after  nearly  a  century  of  foreign 

The  revolts  of  Egypt  from  Persia  will  necessarily  come  under 
consideration  in  the  section  on  the  Achaemenian  Monarchy. 
Egypt  was  the  most  disaffected  of  all  the  Persian  provinces, 
and  was  always  striving  after  independence.  Her  antagonism 
to  Persia  seems  to  have  been  less  political  than  polemical. 
It  was  no  doubt  fermented  by  the  priests.  On  two  occasions 
independence  was  so  far  achieved  that  native  rulers  were  set 
up  ;  and  Manetho  counts  three  native  dynasties  as  interrupting 
the  regular  succession  of  the  Persians.  These  form  the  twenty- 
eighth,  the  twenty-ninth,  and  the  thirtieth  of  his  series.  The 
first  of  these  consists  of  one  king  only,  Amyrtseus,  who  revolted 
in  conjunction  with  Inarus,  and  reigned  from  B.C.  460  to  455. 
The  other  two  dynasties  are  consecutive,  and  cover  the  space 
from  the  revolt  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Nothus  (B.C.  405)  to 
the  re-conquest  under  Ochus  (B.C.  346). 



The  history  of  Carthage  may  be  conveniently  divided  into 
three  periods — the  first  extending  from  the  foundation  of  the 
city  to  the  commencement  of  the  wars  with  Syracuse,  B.C. 
850  to  480 ;  the  next  from  the  first  attack  on  Syracuse  to  the 
breaking  out  of  war  with  Rome,  B.C.  480  to  264;  and  the 
third  from  the  commencement  of  the  Roman  wars  to  their 
termination  by  the  destruction  of  Carthage,  B.C.  264  to  146. 
In  the  present  place,  only  the  first  and  second  of  these  periods 
will  be  considered. 


From  the  Foundation  of  Carthage  to  the  Commencement  of 
the  Wars  with  Syracuse,  from  about  B.C.  850  to  480. 

The  foundation  of  Carthage,  which  was  mentioned  in  the 
Tyrian  histories,  belonged  to  the  time  of  Pygmalion,  the  son 
of  Matgen,  who  seems  to  have  reigned  from  about  B.C.  871 
to  824.  The  colony  appears  to  have  taken  its  rise,  not  from 
the  mere  commercial  spirit  in  which  other  Tyrian  settlements 
on  the  same  coast  had  originated,  but  from  political  differ- 
ences. Still,  its  relations  with  the  mother  city  were,  from  first 
to  last,  friendly;  though  the  bonds  of  union  were  under  the 
Phoenician  system  of  colonization  even  weaker  and  looser  than 
under  the  Greek.  The  site  chosen  for  the  settlement  was  a 
peninsula,  projecting  eastward  into  the  Gulf  of  Tunis,  and 
connected  with  the  mainland  towards  the  west  by  an  isthmus 
about  three  miles  across.  Here  were  some  excellent  land- 
locked harbors,  a  position  easily  defensible,  and  a  soil  which 
was  fairly  fertile.  The  settlement  was  made  with  the  good- 
will of  the  natives,  who  understood  the  benefits  of  commerce, 
and  gladly  let  to  the  new-comers  a  portion  of  their  soil  at  a 
fixed  rent.  For  many  years  the  place  must  have  been  one 
of  small  importance,  little  (if  at  all)  superior  to  Utica  or  Hadru- 
metum;  but  by  degrees  an  advance  was  made,  and  within  a 
century  or  two  from  the  date  of  her  foundation,  Carthage  had 


become  a  considerable  power,  had  shot  ahead  of  all  the  other 
Phoenician  settlements  in  these  parts,  and  had  acquired  a  large 
and  valuable  dominion. 

The  steps  of  the  advance  are  somewhat  difficult  to  trace.  It 
would  seem,  however,  that,  unlike  the  other  Phoenician  col- 
onies, and  unlike  the  Phoenician  cities  of  the  Asiatic  mainland 
themselves,  Carthage  aimed  from  the  first  at  uniting  a  land 
with  a  sea  dominion.  The  native  tribes  in  the  neighborhood 
of  the  city,  originally  nomades,  were  early  won  to  agricultural 
occupations;  Carthaginian  colonies  were  thickly  planted 
among  them;  intermarriages  between  the  colonists  and  the 
native  races  were  encouraged;  and  a  mixed  people  grew  up 
in  the  fertile  territory  south  and  south-west  of  Carthage,  known 
as  Liby-Phoenices,  who  adopted  the  language  and  habits  of  the 
immigrants,  and  readily  took  up  the  position  of  faithful  and 
attached  subjects.  Beyond  the  range  of  territory  thus  occu- 
pied, Carthaginian  influence  was  further  extended  over  a  large 
number  of  pure  African  tribes,  of  whom  some  applied  them- 
selves to  agriculture,  while  the  majority  preserved  their  old 
nomadic  mode  of  life.  These  tribes,  like  the  Arabs  in  the 
modern  Algeria,  were  held  in  a  loose  and  almost  nominal  sub- 
jection ;  but  still  were  reckoned  as,  in  a  certain  sense,  Cartha- 
ginian subjects,  and  no  doubt  contributed  to  the  resources  of 
the  empire.  The  proper  territory  of  Carthage  was  regarded 
as  extending  southward  as  far  as  the  Lake  Triton,  and  west- 
ward to  the  river  Tusca,  which  divided  Zeugitana  from  Nu- 
midia,  thus  nearly  coinciding  with  the  modern  Beylik  of  Tunis. 

But  these  limits  were  far  from  contenting  the  ambition  of 
the  Carthaginians.  From  the  compact  and  valuable  territory 
above  described,  they  proceeded  to  bring  within  the  scope  of 
their  influence  the  tracts  which  lay  beyond  it  eastward  and 
westward.  The  authority  of  Carthage  came  gradually  to  be 
acknowledged  by  all  the  coast-tribes  between  the  Tusca  and 
the  Pillars  of  Hercules,  as  well  as  by  the  various  nomad  races 
between  Lake  Triton  and  the  territory  of  Cyrene.  In  the 
former  tract  numerous  settlements  were  made,  and  a  right 
of  marching  troops  along  the  shore  was  claimed  and  exercised. 
From  the  latter  only  commercial  advantages  were  derived; 
but  these  were  probably  of  considerable  importance. 


In  considering  the  position  of  the  Carthaginians  in  Africa, 
it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Phoenicians  had  founded  nu- 
merous settlements  on  the  African  mainland,  and  that  Car- 
thage was  only  the  most  powerful  of  these  colonies.  Utica, 
Hadrumetum,  Leptis  Magna,  and  other  places,  were  at  the 
first  independent  communities  over  which  Carthage  had  no 
more  right  to  exercise  authority  than  they  had  over  her.  The 
dominion  of  Carthage  seems  to  have  been  by  degrees  extended 
over  these  places ;  but  to  the  last  some  of  them,  more  especially 
Utica,  retained  a  certain  degree  of  independence ;  and,  so  far 
as  these  settlements  are  concerned,  we  must  view  Carthage 
rather  as  the  head  of  a  confederacy  than  as  a  single  centralized 
power.  Her  confederates  were  too  weak  to  resist  her  or  to 
exercise  much  check  upon  her  policy;  but  she  had  the  dis- 
advantage of  being  less  than  absolute  mistress  of  many  places 
lying  within  her  territory. 

But  the  want  of  complete  unity  at  home  did  not  prevent 
her  from  aspiring  after  an  extensive  foreign  dominion.  Her 
influence  was  established  in  Western  Sicily  at  an  early  date, 
and  superseded  in  that  region  the  still  more  ancient  influence 
of  Phoenicia.  Sardinia  was  conquered,  after  long  and  bloody 
wars,  towards  the  close  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.  The  Balearic 
islands,  Majorca,  Minorca,  and  Ivica,  seem  to  have  been  occu- 
pied even  earlier.  At  a  later  time,  settlements  were  made  in 
Corsica  and  Spain ;  while  the  smaller  islands,  both  of  the  Medi- 
terranean and  the  Atlantic,  Madeira,  the  Canaries,  Malta,  Gau- 
los  (Gozo),  and  Cercina,  were  easily  subjugated.  By  the  close 
of  the  sixth  century,  Carthaginian  power  extended  from  the 
greater  Syrtis  to  the  Fortunate  Islands,  and  from  Corsica  to 
the  flanks  of  Atlas. 

To  effect  her  conquests,  the  great  trading  city  had,  almost 
of  necessity,  recourse  to  mercenaries.  Mercenaries  had  been 
employed  by  the  Egyptian  monarchs  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Psammetichus  (B.C.  664),  and  were  known  to  Homer  about 
two  centuries  previously.  Besides  the  nucleus  of  a  disciplined 
force  which  Carthage  obtained  from  her  own  native  citizens 
and  from  the  mixed  race  of  Liby-Phoenices,  and  besides  the 
irregulars  which  she  drew  from  her  other  subjects,  it  was  her 
practice  to  maintain  large  bodies  of  hired  troops  (jiuT0o<l>6pow\ 


derived  partly  from  the  independent  African  nations,  such  as 
the  Numidians  and  the  Mauritanians,  partly  from  the  warlike 
European  races  with  which  her  foreign  trade  brought  her  into 
contact — the  Iberians  of  Spain,  the  Celts  of  Gaul,  and  the  Li- 
gurians  of  Northern  Italy.  The  first  evidence  that  we  have  of 
the  existence  of  this  practice  belongs  to  the  year  B.C.  480; 
but  there  is  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  it  commenced  con- 
siderably earlier. 

The  naval  power  of  Carthage  must  have  dated  from  the 
foundation  of  the  city ;  for,  as  the  sea  in  ancient  times  swarmed 
with  pirates,  an  extensive  commerce  required  and  implies  the 
possession  of  a  powerful  navy.  For  several  centuries  the  great 
PhcEnician  settlement  must  have  been  almost  undisputed  mis- 
tress of  the  Western  and  Central  Mediterranean,  the  only 
approach  to  a  rival  being  Tyrrhenia,  which  was,  however,  de- 
cidedly inferior.  The  officers  and  sailors  in  the  fleets  were 
mostly  native  Carthaginians,  while  the  rowers  were  mainly 
slaves,  whom  the  State  bred  or  bought  for  the  purpose. 

Towards  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  the  jealousy 
of  the  Carthaginians  was  aroused  by  the  intrusion,  into  waters 
which  they  regarded  as  their  own,  of  Greek  commerce.  The 
enterprising  Phocseans  opened  a  trade  with  Tartessus,  founded 
Massilia  near  the  mouth  of  the  Rhone,  and  sought  to  establish 
themselves  in  Corsica  in  force.  Hereupon  Carthage,  assisted 
by  Tyrrhenia,  destroyed  the  Phocaean  fleet,  about  B.C.  550. 
Soon  afterwards  quarrels  arose  in  Sicily  between  the  Cartha- 
ginians and  the  Greek  settlements  there,  provoked  apparently 
by  the  latter.  About  the  same  time  Rome,  under  the  second 
Tarquin,  became  a  flourishing  kingdom,  and  a  naval  power 
of  some  consequence ;  and  Carthage,  accustomed  to  maintain 
friendly  relations  with  the  Italians,  concluded  a  treaty  with 
the  rising  State,  about  B.C.  508. 

The  constitution  of  Carthage,  like  that  of  most  other  great 
trading  communities,  was  undoubtedly  aristocratic.  The  na- 
tive element,  located  at  Carthage,  or  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood, was  the  sole  depositary  of  political  power,  and  gov- 
erned at  its  will  all  the  rest  of  the  empire.  Within  this  native 
element  itself  the  chief  distinction,  which  divided  class  from 
class,  was  that  of  wealth.    The  two  SufTetes  indeed,  who  stood 


in  a  certain  sense  at  the  head  of  the  State,  seem  to  have  been 
chosen  only  from  certain  families;  but  otherwise  all  native 
Carthaginians  were  eligible  to  all  offices.  Practically  what 
threw  power  into  the  hands  of  the  rich  was  the  fact  that  no 
office  was  salaried,  and  that  thus  the  poor  man  could  not  afford 
to  hold  office.  Public  opinion  was  also  strongly  in  favor  of 
the  rich.  Candidates  for  power  were  expected  to  expend  large 
sums  of  money,  if  not  in  actual  bribery,  yet  at  any  rate  in  treat- 
ing on  the  most  extensive  scale.  Thus  office,  and  with  it 
power,  became  the  heritage  of  a  certain  knot  of  peculiarly 
wealthy  families. 

At  the  head  of  the  State  were  two  Suffetes,  or  Judges,  who 
in  the  early  times  were  Captains-general  as  well  as  chief  civil 
magistrates,  but  whose  office  gradually  came  to  be  regarded 
as  civil  only  and  not  military.  These  were  elected  by  the  citi- 
zens from  certain  families,  probably  for  life.  The  next  power 
in  the  State  was  the  Council  (ovy/cXi/ro?),  a  body  consisting  of 
several  hundreds,  from  which  were  appointed,  directly  or  in- 
directly, almost  all  the  officers  of  the  government — as  the  Sen- 
ate of  One  Hundred  (yepovaia),  a  Select  Committee  of  the 
Council  which  directed  all  its  proceedings;  and  the  Pentar- 
chies,  Commissions  of  Five  Members  each,  which  managed 
the  various  departments  of  State,  and  filled  up  vacancies  in  the 
Senate.  The  Council  of  One  Hundred  (or,  with  the  two  Suf- 
fetes and  the  two  High-priests,  104)  Judges,  a  High  Court  of 
Judicature  elected  by  the  people,  was  the  most  popular  element 
in  the  Constitution;  but  even  its  members  were  practically 
chosen  from  the  upper  classes,  and  their  power  was  used  rather 
to  check  the  excessive  ambition  of  individual  members  of  the 
aristocracy  than  to  augment  the  civil  rights  or  improve  the 
social  condition  of  the  people.  The  people,  however,  were 
contented.  They  elected  the  SuflFetes  under  certain  restric- 
tions, and  the  generals  freely ;  they  probably  filled  up  vacancies 
in  the  Great  Council ;  and  in  cases  where  the  Suffetes  and  the 
Council  differed,  they  discussed  and  determined  political  meas- 
ures. Questions  of  peace  and  war,  treaties,  and  the  like,  were 
frequently,  though  not  necessarily,  brought  before  them ;  and 
the  aristocratical  character  of  the  Constitution  was  maintained 
by  the  weight  of  popular  opinion,  which  was  in  favor  of  power 


resting  with  the  rich.  Through  the  openings  which  trade  gave 
to  enterprise  any  one  might  become  rich ;  and  extreme  poverty- 
was  almost  unknown,  since  no  sooner  did  it  appear  than  it 
was  reUeved  by  the  planting  of  colonies  and  the  allotment  of 
waste  lands  to  all  who  applied  for  them. 

As  the  power  of  Carthage  depended  mainly  on  her  mainte- 
nance of  huge  armies  of  mercenaries,  it  was  a  necessity  of  her 
position  that  she  should  have  a  large  and  secure  revenue.  This 
she  drew,  in  part  from  State  property,  particularly  mines,  in 
Spain  and  elsewhere;  in  part  from  tribute,  which  was  paid 
alike  by  the  federate  cities  (Utica,  Hadrumetum,  etc.),  by  the 
Liby-Phoenices,  by  the  dependent  African  nomades,  and  by  the 
provinces  (Sardinia,  Sicily,  etc.) ;  and  in  part  from  customs, 
which  were  exacted  rigorously  through  all  her  dominions. 
The  most  elastic  of  these  sources  of  revenue  was  the  tribute, 
which  was  augmented  or  diminished  as  her  needs  required; 
and  which  is  said  to  have  amounted  sometimes  to  as  much  as 
fifty  per  cent,  on  the  income  of  those  subject  to  it. 

The  extent  of  Carthaginian  commerce  is  uncertain;  but 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  reached,  at  any  rate,  to  the  fol- 
lowing places :  in  the  north,  Cornwall  and  the  Scilly  Islands ; 
in  the  east,  Phoenicia ;  towards  the  west,  Madeira,  the  Canaries, 
and  the  coast  of  Guinea;  towards  the  south,  Fezzan.  It  was 
chiefly  a  trade  by  which  Carthage  obtained  the  commodities 
that  she  needed — wine,  oil,  dates,  salt  fish,  silphium,  gold,  tin, 
lead,  salt,  ivory,  precious  stones,  and  slaves;  exchanging 
against  them  their  own  manufactures — textile  fabrics,  hard- 
ware, pottery,  ornaments  for  the  person,  harness  for  horses, 
tools,  etc.  But  it  was  also  to  a  considerable  extent  a  carrying 
trade,  whereby  Carthage  enabled  the  nations  of  Western 
Europe,  Western  Asia,  and  the  interior  of  Africa  to  obtain 
respectively  each  other's  products.  It  was  in  part  a  land,  in 
part  a  sea  traffic.  While  the  Carthaginian  merchants  scoured 
the  seas  in  all  directions  in  their  trading  vessels,  caravans  di- 
rected by  Carthaginian  enterprise  penetrated  the  Great  Desert, 
and  brought  to  Carthage  from  the  south  and  the  south-east 
the  products  of  those  far-off  regions.  Upper  Egypt,  Cyrene, 
the  oases  of  the  Sahara,  Fezzan,  perhaps  Ethiopia  and  Bornou, 
carried  on  in  this  way  a  traffic  with  the  great  commercial  em- 


porium.  By  sea  her  commerce  was  especially  with  Tyre,  with 
her  own  colonies,  with  the  nations  of  the  Western  Mediterra- 
nean, with  the  tribes  of  the  African  coast  from  the  Pillars  of 
Hercules  to  the  Bight  of  Benin,  and  with  the  remote  barbarians 
of  South-western  Albion. 


From  the  Commencement  of  the  Wars  with  Syracuse  to  the 
breaking  out  of  the  first  War  with  Rome,  B.C.  480  to  264. 

The  desire  of  the  Carthaginians  to  obtain  complete  posses- 
sion of  Sicily  is  in  no  way  strange  or  surprising.  Their  pres- 
tige rested  mainly  on  their  maritime  supremacy;  and  this 
supremacy  was  open  to  question,  so  long  as  the  large  island 
which  lay  closest  to  them  and  most  directly  opposite  to  their 
shores  was  mainly,  or  even  to  any  g^eat  extent,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  aliens.  The  settlement  of  the  Greeks  in  Sicily,  about 
B.C.  750  to  700,  preceded  the  rise  of  the  Carthaginians  to 
greatness ;  and  it  must  have  been  among  the  earliest  objects 
of  ambition  of  the  last-named  people,  after  they  became  power- 
ful, to  drive  the  Hellenes  from  the  island.  It  would  seem,  how- 
ever, that  no  g^eat  expedition  had  been  made  prior  to  B.C. 
480.  Till  then  Carthage  had  been  content  to  hold  the  western 
comer  of  the  island  only,  and  to  repulse  intruders  into  that 
region,  like  Dorieus.  But  in  B.C.  480,  when  the  expedition 
of  Xerxes  gave  full  occupation  to  the  bulk  of  the  Greek  nation, 
Carthage  conceived  that  the  time  was  come  at  which  she  might 
expect  to  attack  the  Greeks  of  Sicily  with  success,  and  to  con- 
quer them  before  they  could  receive  succors  from  the  mother 
country.  Accordingly,  a  vast  army  was  collected,  and  under 
Hamilcar,  son  of  Mago,  a  g^eat  attack  was  made.  But  the 
victory  of  Gelo  at  Himera  completely  frustrated  the  expedition. 
Hamilcar  fell  or  slew  himself.  The  invading  army  was  with- 
drawn, and  Carthage  consented  to  conclude  an  ignominious 

The  check  thus  received  induced  the  Carthaginians  to  sus- 
pend for  a  while  their  desigfns  against  the  coveted  island.  At- 
tention was  turned  to  the  consolidation  of  their  African  power ; 



and  under  Hannibal,  Hasdrubal,  and  Sappho,  grandsons  of 
Mago  and  nephews  of  Hamilcar,  the  native  Libyan  tribes  were 
reduced  to  more  complete  dependence,  and  Carthage  was  re- 
leased from  a  tribute  which  she  had  hitherto  paid  as  an  ac- 
knowledgment that  the  site  on  which  she  stood  was  Libyan 
ground.  A  contest  was  also  carried  on  with  the  Greek  settle- 
ment of  Cyrene,  which  terminated  to  the  advantage  of  Car- 
thage. Anticipated  danger  from  the  excessive  influence  of 
the  family  of  Mago  was  guarded  against  by  the  creation  of  the 
Great  Council  of  Judges,  before  whom  every  general  had  to 
appear  on  his  return  from  an  expedition. 

It  was  seventy  years  after  their  first  ignominious  failure  when 
the  Carthaginians  once  more  invaded  Sicily  in  force.  Invited 
by  Egesta  to  assist  her  against  Selinus,  they  crossed  over  with 
a  vast  fleet  and  army,  under  the  command  of  Hannibal,  the 
grandson  of  Hamilcar,  B.C.  409,  destroyed  Selinus  and  Hi- 
mera,  defeated  the  Greeks  in  several  battles,  and  returned  home 
in  triumph.  This  first  success  was  followed  by  wars  (i)  with 
Dionysius  I.,  tyrant  of  Syracuse;  (2)  with  Dionysius  II.  and 
Timoleon ;  and  (3)  with  Agathocles. 

The  result  of  these  wars  was  not,  on  the  whole,  encouraging. 
At  the  cost  of  several  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men,  of  large 
fleets,  and  of  an  immense  treasure,  Carthage  had  succeeded  in 
maintaining  possession  of  about  one-third  of  Sicily,  but  had 
not  advanced  her  boundary  by  a  single  mile.  Her  armies  had 
generally  been  defeated,  if  they  engaged  their  enemy  upon 
any  thing  like  even  terms.  She  had  found  her  generals  de- 
cidedly inferior  to  those  of  the  Greeks.  Above  all,  she  had 
learnt  that  she  was  vulnerable  at  home — that  descents  might 
be  made  on  her  own  shores,  and  that  her  African  subjects 
were  not  to  be  depended  on.  Still,  she  did  not  relinquish  her 
object.  After  the  death  of  Agathocles  in  B.C.  289,  the  Hel- 
lenic power  in  Sicily  rapidly  declined.  The  Mamertines  seized 
Messana;  and  Carthage,  resuming  an  aggressive  attitude, 
seemed  on  the  point  of  obtaining  all  her  desires.  Agrigentum 
was  once  more  taken,  all  the  southern  part  of  the  island  oc- 
cupied, and  Syracuse  itself  threatened.  But  the  landing  of 
Pyrrhus  at  the  invitation  of  Syracuse  saved  the  city,  and 
turned  the  fortune  of  war  against  Carthage,  B.C.  279.     His 


flight,  two  years  later,  did  not  restore  matters  to  their  former 
condition.  Carthage  had  contracted  obHgations  towards  Syra- 
cuse in  the  war  against  Pyrrhus;  and,  moreover,  a  new  contest 
was  evidently  impending.  The  great  aggressive  power  of  the 
West,  Rome,  was  about  to  appear  upon  the  scene;  and,  to 
resist  her,  Carthage  required  the  friendly  co-operation  of  the 
Greeks.  A  treaty  was  consequently  made  with  Hiero;  and 
Carthage  paused,  biding  her  time,  and  still  hoping  at  no  dis- 
tant period  to  extend  her  domination  over  the  entire  island. 



ANDER, FROM   B.C.  558  TO  330. 

The  Persians  appear  to  have  formed  a  part  of  a  great  Arian 
migration  from  the  countries  about  the  Oxus,  which  began  at 
a  very  remote  time,  but  was  not  completed  till  about  B.C.  650. 
The  line  of  migration  was  first  westward,  along  the  Elburz 
range  into  Armenia  and  Azerbijan,  then  south  along  Zagros, 
and  finally  south-east  into  Persia  Proper.  The  chief  who  first 
set  up  an  Arian  monarchy  in  this  last-named  region  seems  to 
have  been  a  certain  Achaemenes  (Hakhamanish),  who  probably 
ascended  the  throne  about  a  century  before  Cyrus. 

The  nation  was  composed  of  two  classes  of  persons — the 
settled  population,  which  lived  in  towns  or  villages,  for  the 
most  part  cultivating  the  soil,  and  the  pastoral  tribes,  whose 
habits  were  nomadic.  The  latter  consisted  of  four  distinct 
tribes — the  Dai,  the  Mardi,  the  Dropici  or  Derbices,  and  the 
Sagartii ;  while  the  former  comprised  the  six  divisions  of  the 
Pasargadae.  the  Maraphii,  the  Maspii,  the  Panthialaei,  the 
Derusiaei,  and  the  Germanii  or  Carmanians.  Of  these,  the  first 
three  were  superior;  and  a  very  marked  precedency  or  pre- 
eminency  attached  to  the  Pasargadae.  They  formed  a  species 
of  nobility,  holding  almost  all  the  high  offices  both  in  the  army 
and  at  the  court.  The  royal  family  of  the  Achaemenidse,  or 
descendants  of  Achaemenes,  belonged  to  this  leading  tribe. 

A  line  of  native  Persian  kings  held  the  throne  from  Achae- 
menes to  Cyrus;  but  the  sovereignty  which  they  possessed 
was  not,  at  any  rate  in  the  times  immediately  preceding  Cyrus, 
an  independent  dominion.  Relations  of  a  feudal  character 
bound  Persia  to  Media;  and  the  Achaemenian  princes,  either 
from  the  first,  or  certainly  from  some  time  before  Cyrus  re- 



belled,  acknowledged  the  Median  monarch  for  their  suzerain. 
Cyrus  lived  as  a  sort  of  hostage  at  the  court  of  Astyages,  and 
could  not  leave  it  without  permission.  Cambyses,  his  father, 
had  the  royal  title,  and,  practically,  governed  Persia;  but  he 
was  subject  to  Astyages,  and  probably  paid  him  an  annual 

The  revolt  of  the  Persians  was  not  the  consequence  of  their 
suffering  any  grievous  oppression;  nor  did  it  even  arise  from 
any  wide-spread  discontent  or  dissatisfaction  with  their  condi- 
tion. Its  main  cause  was  the  ambition  of  Cyrus.  That  prince 
had  seen,  as  he  grew  up  at  Ecbatana,  that  the  strength  of  the 
Medes  was  undermined  by  luxury,  that  their  old  warlike  habits 
were  laid  aside,  and  that,  in  all  the  qualities  which  make  the 
soldier,  they  were  no  match  for  his  own  countrymen.  He 
had  learnt  to  despise  the  faineant  monarch  who  occupied  the 
Median  throne.  It  occurred  to  him  that  it  would  be  easy  to 
make  Persia  an  independent  power;  and  this  was  probably  all 
that  he  at  first  contemplated.  But  the  fatal  persistence  of  the 
Median  monarch  in  attempts  to  reduce  the  rebels,  and  his 
capture  in  the  second  battle  of  Pasargadae,  opened  the  way 
to  greater  changes;  and  the  Persian  prince,  rising  to  a  level 
with  the  occasion,  pushed  his  own  country  into  the  imperial 
position  from  which  the  success  of  his  revolt  had  dislodged 
the  Medes. 

The  warlike  prince  who  thus  conquered  the  Persian  empire 
did  little  to  organize  it.  Professing,  probably,  a  purer  form 
of  Zoroastrianism  than  that  which  prevailed  in  Media,  where 
a  mongrel  religion  had  grown  up  from  the  mixture  of  the  old 
Arian  creed  with  Scythic  element-worship,  he  retained  his  own 
form  of  belief  as  the  religion  of  the  empire.  Universal  tolera- 
tion was,  however,  established.  The  Jews,  regarded  with  spe- 
cial favor  as  monotheists,  were  replaced  in  their  proper  coun- 
try. Ecbatana  was  kept  as  the  capital,  while  Pasargadae  be- 
came a  sacred  city,  used  for  coronations  and  interments.  The 
civilization  of  the  Medes,  their  art,  architecture,  ceremonial, 
dress,  manners,  and  to  some  extent  their  luxury,  were  adopted 
by  the  conquering  people.  The  employment  of  letters  in  in- 
scriptions on  public  monuments  began.  No  general  system 
of  administration  was  established.     Some  countries  remained 


under  tributary  native  kings;  others  were  placed  under  gov- 
ernors; in  some  the  governmental  functions  were  divided,  and 
native  officers  shared  the  administration  with  Persians.  The 
rate  of  tribute  was  not  fixed.  Cyrus  left  the  work  of  consolida- 
tion and  organization  to  his  successors,  content  to  have  given 
them  an  empire  on  which  to  exercise  their  powers. 

The  close  of  the  reig^  of  Cyrus  is  shrouded  in  some  ob- 
scurity. We  do  not  know  why  he  did  not  carry  out  his  designs 
against  Egj'pt,  nor  what  occupied  him  in  the  interval  between 
B.C.  538  and  529.  We  can  not  even  say  with  any  certainty 
against  what  enemy  he  was  engaged  when  he  lost  his  life. 
Herodotus  and  Ctesias  are  here  irreconcilably  at  variance,  and 
though  the  authority  of  the  former  is  greater,  the  narrative  of 
the  latter  is  in  this  instance  the  more  credible.  Both  writers, 
however,  are  agreed  that  the  Persian  king  was  engaged  in 
chastising  an  enemy  on  his  north-eastern  frontier,  when  he 
received  the  wound  from  which  he  died.  Probably  he  was 
endeavoring  to  strike  terror  into  the  nomadic  hordes  who  here 
bordered  the  empire,  and  so  to  secure  his  territories  from  their 
dreaded  aggressions.  If  this  was  his  aim,  his  enterprise  was 
successful ;  for  we  hear  of  no  invasion  of  Persia  from  the  Tur- 
coman country  until  after  the  time  of  Alexander. 

Cyrus  left  behind  him  two  sons,  Cambyses  and  Bardius,  or 
(as  the  Greeks  called  him)  Smerdis.  To  the  former  he  left  the 
regal  title  and  the  greater  portion  of  his  dominions;  to  the 
latter  he  secured  the  inheritance  of  some  large  and  important 
provinces.  This  imprudent  arrangement  cost  Smerdis  his  life, 
by  rousing  the  jealousy  of  his  brother,  who  very  early  in  his 
reign  caused  him  to  be  put  to  death  secretly. 

The  genius  of  Cambyses  was  warlike,  like  that  of  his  father; 
but  he  did  not  possess  the  same  ability.  Nevertheless  he 
added  important  provinces  to  the  empire.  First  of  all  he  pro- 
cured the  submission  of  Phoenicia  and  Cyprus,  the  great  naval 
powers  of  Western  Asia,  which  had  not  been  subject  to  Cyrus. 
He  then  invaded  Africa,  B.C.  525,  defeated  Psammenitus  in  a 
pitched  battle,  took  Memphis,  conquered  Egypt,  received  the 
submission  of  the  neighboring  Libyan  tribes,  and  of  the  Greek 
towns  of  the  Cyrenaica,  and  proceeded  to  form  designs  of  re- 
markable g^ndeur.     But  these  projects  all  miscarried.    The 


expedition  against  Carthage  was  stopped  by  the  refusal  of  the 
Phoenicians  to  attack  their  own  colony;  that  against  the  oasis 
of  Ammon  ended  in  a  frightful  disaster.  His  own  march 
against  Ethiopia  was  arrested  by  the  failure  of  provisions  and 
water  in  the  Nubian  desert;  and  the  losses  which  he  incurred 
by  persisting  too  long  in  his  attempt  brought  Egypt  to  the 
brink  of  rebellion.  The  severe  measures  taken  to  repress  this 
revolt  were  directed  especially  against  the  powerful  caste  of 
the  priests,  and  had  the  effect  of  thoroughly  alienating  the 
province,  which  thenceforth  never  ceased  to  detest  and  plot 
against  its  conquerors. 

The  stay  of  Cambyses  in  Egypt,  imprudently  prolonged, 
brought  about  a  revolution  at  the  Medo-Persian  capital.  A 
Magus,  named  Gomates,  supported  by  his  order,  which  was 
powerful  in  many  parts  of  the  empire,  ventured  to  personate 
the  dead  Smerdis,  and  seized  the  throne  in  his  name.  His 
claim  was  tacitly  acknowledged.  Cambyses,  when  the  news 
reached  him  in  Syria  on  his  march  homeward,  despairing  of 
being  able  to  make  head  against  the  impostor,  committed 
suicide — B.C.  522 — after  having  reigned  eight  years. 

To  conciliate  his  subjects,  the  pseudo-Smerdis  began  his 
reign  by  a  three  years'  remission  of  tribute,  and  an  exemption 
of  the  conquered  nations  from  military  service  for  the  like 
space.  At  the  same  time,  he  adopted  an  extreme  system  of 
seclusion,  in  the  hope  that  his  imposture  might  escape  detec- 
tion, never  quitting  the  palace,  and  allowing  no  communication 
between  his  wives  and  their  relations.  But  the  truth  gradually 
oozed  out.  His  religious  reforms  were  startling  in  an  Achse- 
menian  prince.  His  seclusion  was  excessive  and  suspicious. 
Doubts  began  to  be  entertained,  and  secret  messages  between 
the  great  Persian  nobles  and  some  of  the  palace  inmates  con- 
verted these  doubts  into  certainty.  Darius,  the  son  of  Hystas- 
pes,  and  probably  heir-presumptive  to  the  crown,  headed  an 
insurrection,  and  the  impostor  was  slain  after  he  had  reigned 
eight  months. 

Darius  I.,  who  ascended  the  throne  in  January,  B.C.  521, 
and  held  it  for  nearly  thirty-six  years,  was  the  greatest  of  the 
Persian  monarchs.  He  was  at  once  a  conqueror  and  an  ad- 
ministrator.   During  the  earlier  part  of  his  reign  he  was  en- 


g^ged  in  a  series  of  struggles  against  rebellions,  which  broke 
out  in  almost  all  parts  of  the  empire.  Susiana,  Babylonia, 
Persia  Proper,  Media,  Assyria,  Armenia,  Hyrcania,  Parthia, 
Margiana,  Sagartia,  and  Sacia  successively  revolted.  The  sa- 
traps in  Egypt  and  Asia  Minor  acted  as  though  independent 
of  his  authority.  The  empire  was  shaken  to  its  centre,  and 
threatened  to  fall  to  pieces.  But  the  military  talent  and  pru- 
dence of  the  legitimate  monarch  prevailed.  Within  the  space 
of  six  years  the  rebellions  were  all  put  down,  the  pretenders 
executed,  and  tranquillity  generally  restored  throughout  the 
disturbed  provinces. 

The  evils  of  disorganization,  which  had  thus  manifested 
themselves  so  conspicuously,  may  have  led  Darius  to  turn  his 
thoughts  towards  a  remedy.  At  any  rate,  to  him  belongs  the 
credit  of  having  given  to  the  Persian  empire  that  peculiar  or- 
ganization and  arrangement  which  maintained  it  in  a  fairly 
flourishing  condition  for  nearly  two  centuries.  He  divided 
the  whole  empire  into  twenty  (?)  governments,  called  "  sa- 
trapies," and  established  everywhere  a  uniform  and  somewhat 
complicated  governmental  system.  Native  tributary  kings 
were  swept  away;  and,  in  lieu  of  them,  a  single  Persian  official 
held  in  each  province  the  supreme  civil  authority.  A  standing 
army  of  Medo-Persians,  dispersed  throughout  the  empire, 
supported  the  civil  power,  maintained  tranquillity,  and  wgs 
ready  to  resist  the  attacks  of  foreigners.  A  fixed  rate  of  tribute 
took  the  place  of  arbitrary  exactions.  "  Royal  roads  "  were 
established,  and  a  system  of  posts  arranged,  whereby  the  court 
received  rapid  intelligence  of  all  that  occurred  in  the  provinces, 
and  promptly  communicated  its  own  commands  to  the  remot- 
est corners  of  the  Persian  territory. 

The  military  system,  established  or  inherited  by  Darius,  had 
for  its  object  to  combine  the  maximum  of  efficiency  against  a 
foreign  enemy  with  the  minimum  of  danger  from  internal  dis- 
affection. The  regular  profession  of  arms  was  confined  to 
the  dominant  race — or  to  that  race  and  a  few  others  of  closely 
kindred  origin — and  a  standing  army,  thus  composed  and 
amounting  to  several  hundreds  of  thousands,  maintained  order 
throughout  the  Great  King's  dominions,  and  conducted  the 
smaller  and  less  important  expeditions.  But  when  danger 
.  6 


threatened,  or  a  great  expedition  was  to  be  undertaken,  the 
whole  empire  was  laid  under  contribution;  each  one  of  the 
subject  nations  was  required  to  send  its  quota;  and  in  this  way 
armies  were  collected  which  sometimes  exceeded  a  million  of 
men.  In  the  later  times,  mercenaries  were  largely  employed, 
not  only  in  expeditions,  but  as  a  portion  of  the  standing  army. 

The  navy  of  the  Persians  was  drawn  entirely  from  the  con- 
quered nations.  Phoenicia,  Egypt,  Cyprus,  Cilicia,  Asiatic 
Greece,  and  other  of  the  maritime  countries  subject  to  Persia, 
furnished  contingents  of  ships  and  crews  according  to  their 
relative  strength;  and  fleets  were  thus  collected  of  above  a 
thousand  vessels.  The  ship  of  war  ordinarily  employed  was 
the  trireme;  but  lesser  vessels  were  also  used  occasionally. 
The  armed  force  on  board  the  ships  {cTn^drai  or  "  marines  ") 
was  Medo-Persian,  either  wholly  or  predominantly;  and  the 
fleets  were  usually  placed  under  a  Persian  or  Median  com- 

The  great  king  to  whom  Persia  owed  her  civil,  and  (prob- 
ably in  part)  her  military  organization,  was  not  disposed  to 
allow  the  warlike  qualities  of  his  subjects  to  rust  for  want  of 
exercise.  Shortly  after  the  revolts  had  been  put  down,  Darius 
I.,  by  himself  or  by  his  generals,  commenced  and  carried  out 
a  series  of  military  expeditions  of  first-rate  importance.  The 
earliest  of  these  was  directed  against  Western  India,  or  the 
regions  now  known  as  the  Punjab  and  Scinde.  After  explor- 
ing the  country  by  means  of  boats,  which  navigated  the  Indus 
from  Attock  to  the  sea,  he  led  or  sent  a  body  of  troops  into 
the  region,  and  rapidly  reduced  it  to  subjection.  A  valuable 
gold-tract  was  thus  added  to  the  empire,  and  the  revenue  was 
augmented  by  about  one-third.  Commerce  also  received  an 
impulse  from  the  opening  of  the  Indian  market  to  Persian 
traders,  who  thenceforth  kept  up  a  regular  communication 
with  the  tribes  bordering  the  Indus  by  coasting  vessels  which 
started  from  the  Persian  Gulf. 

The  next  great  expedition  was  in  the  most  directly  opposite 
direction.  It  was  undertaken  against  the  numerous  and  war- 
like Scythian  nation  which  possessed  the  vast  plains  of  South- 
ern Russia,  extending  between  the  Don  and  the  Danube,  the 
region  now  generally  known  as  the  Ukraine.    The  object  of 


this  expedition  was  not  conquest,  but  the  exhibition  of  the 
Persian  military  strength,  the  sight  of  which  was  calculated 
to  strike  terror  into  the  Scythic  hordes,  and  to  prevent  them 
from  venturing  to  invade  the  territory  of  so  powerful  a  neigh- 
bor. The  great  Persian  kings,  like  the  great  Roman  emperors, 
caused  their  own  frontiers  to  be  respected  by  overstepping 
them,  and  ravaging  with  fire  and  sword  the  countries  of  the 
fierce  Northern  barbarians. 

The  sequel  of  the  Scythian  expedition  was  the  firm  estab- 
lishment of  the  Persian  power  on  the  European  side  of  the 
straits,  and  the  rapid  extension  of  it  over  the  parts  of  Thrace 
bordering  on  the  ^Egean,  over  the  adjoining  country  of  Pae- 
onia,  and  even  over  the  still  more  remote  Macedonia.  The 
Persian  dominion  now  reached  from  the  Indian  desert  to  the 
borders  of  Thessaly,  and  from  the  Caucasus  to  Ethiopia. 

Simultaneously  with  the  Scythic  expedition,  Aryandes,  the 
satrap  of  Egypt,  marched  against  the  Greek  town  of  Barca, 
in  Africa,  to  avenge  the  murder  of  a  king  who  was  a  Persian 
tributary.  Barca  was  taken,  and  its  inhabitants  transplanted 
to  Asia;  but  the  hostility  of  the  semi-independent  nomades 
was  aroused,  and  the  army  on  its  return  suffered  no  incon- 
siderable losses. 

Not  long  afterwards  the  ambitious  designs  of  Darius  were 
violently  interrupted  by  a  revolt  second  in  importance  to 
scarcely  any  of  those  which  had  occupied  his  early  years.  The 
Greeks  of  Asia,  provoked  by  the  support  which  Darius  lent 
to  their  tyrants,  and  perhaps  rendered  sensible  of  their  power 
by  the  circumstances  of  the  Scythic  campaign,  broke  out  into 
general  rebellion  at  the  instigation  of  Aristagoras  of  Miletus, 
murdered  or  expelled  their  tyrants,  and  defied  the  power  of 
Persia.  Two  states  of  European  Greece,  Athens  and  Eretria, 
joined  the  rebels.  Bold  counsels  prevailed,  and  an  attack  was 
made  on  the  satrapial  capital,  Sardis.  Unfortunately,  the 
capture  of  the  city  was  followed  by  its  accidental  conflagration; 
and  the  small  knot  of  invaders,  forced  to  retreat,  were  over- 
taken and  defeated  in  the  battle  of  Ephesus,  whereupon  the 
two  European  allies  deserted  the  falling  cause.  On  the  other 
hand,  numerous  states,  both  European  and  Asiatic,  excited 
by  the  news  of  the  fall  of  Sardis,  asserted  independence;  and 


the  flames  of  rebellion  were  lighted  along  the  entire  Asiatic 
coast  from  the  Sea  of  Marmora  to  the  Gulf  of  Issus.  The 
Ionian,  ^olic,  and  Hellespontine  Greeks,  the  Carians  and 
Caunians  of  the  south-western  corner  of  the  peninsula,  and 
the  Cyprians,  both  Greek  and  native,  made  common  cause; 
several  battles  were  fought  with  varying  success;  but  at  last 
the  power  of  Persia  prevailed.  The  confederate  fleet  suffered 
defeat  in  the  battle  of  Lade,  and  soon  afterwards  Miletus  was 
taken.  The  rebellious  states  were  punished  with  great  severity, 
and  the  authority  of  Darius  was  once  more  firmly  established 
in  all  the  revolted  countries. 

The  honor  of  the  Great  King  required  that  immediate  ven- 
geance should  be  taken  on  the  bold  foreigners  who  had  inter- 
meddled between  him  and  his  subjects.  But,  even  apart  from 
this,  an  expedition  against  Greece  was  certain,  and  could  only 
be  a  question  of  time.  The  exploring  voyage  of  Democedes, 
about  B.C.  510,  shows  that  even  before  the  Scythian  campaign 
an  attack  on  this  quarter  was  intended.  An  expedition  was 
therefore  fitted  out,  in  B.C.  493,  under  Mardonius,  which  took 
the  coast-line  through  Thrace  and  Macedonia.  A  storm  at 
Athos,  however,  shattered  the  fleet;  and  the  land-army  was 
crippled  by  a  night  attack  of  the  Brygi.  Mardonius  returned 
home  without  effecting  his  purpose;  but  his  expedition  was 
not  wholly  fruitless.  His  fleet  reduced  Thasos;  and  his  army 
forced  the  Macedonians  to  exchange  their  positions  of  semi- 
independence  for  complete  subjection  to  Persia. 

The  failure  of  Mardonius  was  followed  within  two  years 
by  the  second  great  expedition  against  Greece — the  first  which 
reached  it — that  conducted  by  Datis.  Datis  proceeded  by  sea, 
crossing  through  the  Cyclades,  and  falling  first  upon  Eretria, 
which  was  besieged,  and  taken  by  treachery.  A  landing  was 
then  made  at  Marathon;  but  the  defeat  of  the  Persian  host 
by  Miltiades,  and  his  rapid  march  to  Athens  immediately  after 
the  victory,  frustrated  the  expedition,  disappointing  alike  the 
commander  and  the  Athenian  ex-tyrant,  Hippias,  who  had 
accompanied  it. 

Undismayed  by  his  two  failures,  Darius  commenced  prepa- 
rations for  a  third  attack,  and  would  probably  have  proceeded 
in  person  against  Athens,  had  not  the  revolt  of  Egypt  first 


(B.C.  487),  and  then  his  own  death  (B.C.  486),  intervened. 
Darius  died  after  nominating  as  his  successor,  not  his  eldest 
son,  Artobazanes,  but  the  eldest  of  his  sons  by  Atossa,  daugh- 
ter of  Cyrus — a  prince  who  had  thus  the  advantage  of  having 
in  his  veins  the  blood  of  the  great  founder  of  the  empire. 

Darius  probably  died  at  Susa;  but  he  was  buried  in  the 
vicinity  of  Persepolis,  where  he  had  prepared  himself  an  elabo- 
rate rock  tomb,  adorned  with  sculptures  and  bearing  a  long 
inscription — all  which  remain  to  the  present  day.  The  g^eat 
palace  of  Persepolis,  in  all  its  extent  and  grandeur,  was  his 
conception,  if  not  altogether  his  work;  as  was  also  the  equally 
magnificent  structure  at  Susa,  which  was  the  ordinary  royal 
residence  from  his  time.  He  likewise  set  up  the  great  rock 
inscription  at  Behistun  (Bagistan),  the  most  valuable  of  all 
the  Persian  monumental  remains.  Other  memorials  of  his 
reign  have  been  found,  or  are  known  to  have  existed,  at  Ecba- 
tana,  at  Byzantium,  in  Thrace,  and  in  Egypt.  In  the  last- 
named  country  he  reopened  the  great  canal  between  the  Nile 
and  the  Red  Sea,  which  the  Ramessides  had  originally  cut, 
and  the  Psamatiks  had  vainly  endeavored  to  re-establish. 

Xerxes  I.,  who  succeeded  Darius,  B.C.  486,  commenced  his 
reign  by  the  reduction  of  Egypt,  B.C.  485,  which  he  intrusted 
to  his  brother,  Achaemenes.  He  then  provoked  and  chastised 
a  rebellion  of  the  Babylonians,  enriching  himself  with  the 
plunder  of  their  temples.  After  this  he  turned  his  attention 
to  the  invasion  of  Greece. 

Too  much  weight  has  probably  been  assigned  to  the  cabals 
and  intrigues  of  the  Persian  nobles,  and  the  Greek  refugees 
at  Xerxes's  court.  Until  failure  checked  the  military  aspira- 
tions of  the  nation,  a  Persian  prince  was  almost  under  the 
necessity  of  undertaking  some  great  conquest;  and  there  was 
at  this  time  no  direction  in  which  an  expedition  could  so  read- 
ily be  undertaken  as  towards  the  west.  Elsewhere  high  moun- 
tains, broad  seas,  or  barren  deserts  skirted  the  empire — here 
only  did  Persian  territory  adjoin  on  a  fruitful,  well-watered, 
and  pleasant  region.  The  attempt  to  reduce  Greece  was  the 
natural  sequel  to  the  conquests  of  Egypt,  India,  Thrace,  and 

It  was  now  the  turn  of  the  Greeks  to  retaliate  on  their 


prostrate  foe.  First  under  the  lead  of  Sparta  and  then  under 
that  of  Athens  they  freed  the  islands  of  the  ^Egean  from  the 
Persian  yoke,  expelled  the  Persian  garrisons  from  Europe, 
and  even  ravaged  the  Asiatic  coast  and  made  descents  on  it 
at  their  pleasure.  For  twelve  years  no  Persian  fleet  ventured 
to  dispute  with  them  the  sovereignty  of  the  seas;  and  when 
at  last,  in  B.C.  466,  a  naval  force  was  collected  to  protect 
Cilicia  and  Cyprus,  it  was  defeated  and  destroyed  by  Cimon 
at  the  Eurymedon. 

Soon  after  this  Xerxes's  reign  came  to  an  end.  This  weak 
prince,  after  the  failure  of  his  grand  expedition,  desisted  from 
all  military  enterprise.  No  doubt  his  empire  was  greatly  in- 
jured and  exhausted  by  its  losses  in  the  Grecian  war,  and  a 
period  of  repose  was  absolutely  necessary;  but  it  would  seem 
to  have  been  natural  temperament,  as  much  as  prudence,  that 
caused  the  unwarlike  monarch  to  rest  content  under  his  dis- 
comfiture, and  to  make  no  effort  to  wipe  out  its  disgrace. 
Xerxes,  on  his  return  to  Asia,  found  consolation  for  his  mili- 
tary failure  in  the  delights  of  the  seraglio,  and  ceased  to 
trouble  himself  much  about  affairs  of  State.  He  was  satisfied 
to  check  the  further  progress  of  the  Greeks  by  corrupting 
their  cleverest  statesmen;  and,  submitting  himself  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  women  and  eunuchs,  lost  all  manliness  of  char- 
acter. His  own  indulgence  in  illicit  amours  caused  violence 
and  bloodshed  in  his  family,  and  his  example  encouraged  a 
similar  profligacy  in  others.  The  bloody  and  licentious  deeds 
which  stain  the  whole  of  the  later  Persian  history  commence 
with  Xerxes,  who  suffered  the  natural  penalty  of  his  follies 
and  his  crimes  when,  after  reigning  twenty  years,  he  was  mur- 
dered by  the  captain  of  his  guard,  Artabanus,  and  Aspamitres, 
his  chamberlain. 

Artabanus  placed  on  the  throne  the  youngest  son  of  Xerxes, 
Artaxerxes  I.,  called  by  the  Greeks  Macrocheir,  or  "  the  Long- 
handed."  The  eldest  son,  Darius,  accused  by  Artabanus  of 
his  father's  assassination,  was  executed ;  the  second,  Hystaspes, 
who  was  satrap  of  Bactria,  claimed  the  crown;  and,  attempt- 
ing to  enforce  his  claim,  was  defeated  and  slain  in  battle.  About 
the  same  time  the  crimes  of  Artabanus  were  discovered,  and 
he  was  put  to  death. 


Artaxerxes  then  reigned  quietly  for  nearly  forty  years.  He 
was  a  mild  prince,  possessed  of  several  good  qualities;  but 
the  weakness  of  his  character  caused  a  rapid  declension  of  the 
empire  under  his  sway.  The  revolt  of  Egypt  was  indeed  sup- 
pressed after  a  while  through  the  vigorous  measures  of  the 
satrap  of  Syria,  Megabyzus;  and  the  Athenians,  who  had  fo- 
mented it,  were  punished  by  the  complete  destruction  of  their 
fleet,  and  the  loss  of  almost  all  their  men.  But  the  cruelty  and 
perfidy  shown  in  the  execution  of  the  captured  Inarus  must 
have  increased  Egyptian  disaffect-ion,  while  at  the  same  time 
it  disgusted  Megabyzus  and  the  better  class  of  Persians,  and 
became  the  cause  of  fresh  misfortunes. 

Bent  on  recovering  her  prestige,  Athens,  in  B.C.  449,  dis- 
patched a  fleet  to  the  Levant,  under  Cimon,  which  sailed  to 
Cyprus  and  laid  siege  to  Citium.  There  Cimon  died;  but  the 
fleet  which  had  been  under  his  orders  attacked  and  completely 
defeated  a  large  Persian  armament  off  Salamis,  besides  de- 
taching a  squadron  to  assist  Amyrtaeus,  who  still  held  out  in 
the  Delta.  Persia,  dreading  the  loss  of  Cyprus  and  Eg^pt, 
consented  to  an  inglorious  peace.  The  independence  of  the 
Asiatic  Greeks  was  recognized.  Persia  undertook  not  to  visit 
with  fleet  or  army  the  coasts  of  Western  Asia  Minor,  and 
Athens  agreed  to  abstain  from  attacks  on  Cyprus  and  Egypt. 
The  Greek  cities  ceded  by  this  treaty — the  "  peace  of  Callias  " 
— to  the  Athenian  confederacy  included  all  those  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Hellespont  to  Phaselis  in  Lycia,  but  did  not  in- 
clude the  cities  on  the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea. 

Scarcely  less  damaging  to  Persia  was  the  revolt  of  Mega- 
byzus, which  followed.  This  powerful  noble,  disgusted  at  the 
treatment  of  Inarus,  which  was  contrar>'  to  his  pledged  word, 
excited  a  rebellion  in  Syria,  and  so  alarmed  Artaxerxes  that 
he  was  allowed  to  dictate  the  terms  on  which  he  would  con- 
sent to  be  reconciled  to  his  sovereign.  An  example  was  thus 
set  of  successful  rebellion  on  the  part  of  a  satrap,  which  could 
not  but  have  disastrous  consequences.  The  prestige  of  the 
central  government  was  weakened;  and  provincial  governors 
were  tempted  to  throw  oflF  their  allegiance  on  any  fair  occa- 
sion that  offered  itself;  since,  if  successful,  they  had  nothing 
to  fear,  and  in  any  case  they  might  look  for  pardon. 


The  disorders  of  the  court  continued,  and,  indeed,  increased, 
under  Artaxerxes  I.,  who  allowed  his  mother  Amestris,  and 
his  sister  Amytis,  who  was  married  to  Megabyzus,  to  indulge 
freely  the  cruelty  and  licentiousness  of  their  dispositions. 
Artaxerxes  died  B.C.  425,  and  left  his  crown  to  his  only  le- 
gitimate son,  Xerxes  II. 

Revolutions  in  the  government  now  succeeded  each  other 
with  great  rapidity.  Xerxes  II.,  after  reigning  forty-five  days, 
was  assassinated  by  his  half-brother,  Secydianus  or  Sogdianus, 
an  illegitimate  son  of  Artaxerxes,  who  seized  the  throne,  but 
was  murdered  in  his  turn,  after  a  reign  of  six  months  and  a 
half,  by  another  brother,  Ochus. 

Ochus,  on  ascending  the  throne,  took  the  name  of  Darius, 
and  is  known  in  history  as  Darius  Nothus.  He  was  married 
to  Parysatis,  his  aunt,  a  daughter  of  Xerxes  I.,  and  reigned 
nineteen  years,  B.C.  424  to  404,  under  her  tutelage.  His  reign, 
though  checkered  with  some  gleams  of  sunshine,  was  on  the 
whole  disastrous.  Revolt  succeeded  to  revolt;  and,  though 
most  of  the  insurrections  were  quelled,  it  was  at  the  cost  of 
what  remained  of  Persian  honor  and  self-respect.  Corrup- 
tion was  used  instead  of  force  against  the  rebellious  armies; 
and  the  pledges  freely  given  to  the  leaders  in  order  to  pro- 
cure their  submission  were  systematically  disregarded.  Arsites, 
the  king's  brother,  his  fellow-conspirator,  a  brother  of  Mega- 
byzus, and  Pissuthnes,  the  satrap  of  Lydia,  were  successively 
entrapped  in  this  way,  and  suffered  instant  execution.  So 
low  had  the  feeling  of  honor  sunk,  that  Pissuthnes's  captor, 
Tissaphernes,  instead  of  showing  indignation,  like  Megabyzus, 
accepted  the  satrapy  of  his  victim,  and  thus  made  himself  a 
participant  in  his  sovereign's  perfidy. 

Still  more  dangerous  to  the  State,  if  less  disgraceful,  were 
the  practices  which  now  arose  of  uniting  commonly  the  offices 
of  satrap  and  commander  of  the  forces,  and  of  committing  to 
a  single  governor  two,  or  even  three,  satrapies.  The  authority 
of  the  Crown  was  relaxed;  satraps  became  practically  uncon- 
trolled; their  lawless  acts  were  winked  at  or  condoned;  and 
their  governments  tended  more  and  more  to  become  hereditary 
fiefs — ^the  first  step,  in  empires  like  the  Persian,  to  disintegra- 


The  revolts  of  satraps  were  followed  by  national  outbreaks, 
which,  though  sometimes  quelled,  were  in  other  instances  suc- 
cessful. In  B.C.  408,  the  Medes,  who  had  patiently  acquiesced 
in  Persian  rule  for  more  than  a  century,  made  an  eflfort  to 
shake  off  the  yoke,  but  were  defeated  and  reduced  to  subjec- 
tion. Three  years  later,  B.C.  405,  Egypt  once  more  rebelled, 
under  Nepherites,  and  succeeded  in  establishing  its  indepen- 
dence. (See  Book  I.,  Part  II.)  The  Persians  were  expelled 
from  Africa,  and  a  native  prince  seated  himself  on  the  throne 
of  the  Pharaohs. 

It  was  some  compensation  for  this  loss,  and  perhaps  for 
others  towards  the  north  and  north-east  of  the  empire,  that 
in  Asia  Minor  the  authority  of  the  Great  King  was  once  more 
established  over  the  Greek  cities.  It  was  the  Peloponnesian 
War,  rather  than  the  peace  of  Callias,  which  had  prevented 
any  collision  between  the  great  powers  of  Europe  and  Asia 
for  thirty-seven  years.  Both  Athens  and  Sparta  had  their 
hands  full ;  and  though  it  might  have  been  expected  that 
Persia  would  have  at  once  taken  advantage  of  the  quarrel  to 
reclaim  at  least  her  lost  continental  dominion,  yet  she  seems 
to  have  refrained,  through  moderation  or  fear,  until  the  Athe- 
nian disasters  in  Sicily  encouraged  her  to  make  an  effort.  She 
then  invited  the  Spartans  to  Asia,  and  by  the  treaties  which 
she  concluded  with  them,  and  the  aid  which  she  gave  them, 
re-acquired  without  a  struggle  all  the  Greek  cities  of  the  coast. 
It  was  her  policy,  however,  not  to  depress  Athens  too  much — 
a  policy  which  was  steadily  pursued,  till  the  personal  ambition 
of  the  younger  Cyrus  caused  a  departure  from  the  line  dictated 
by  prudence. 

The  progress  of  corruption  at  court  kept  pace  with  the  gen- 
eral decline  which  may  be  traced  in  all  parts  of  the  empire. 
The  power  of  the  eunuchs  increased,  and  they  began  to  aspire, 
not  only  to  govern  the  monarch,  but  actually  to  seat  themselves 
upon  the  throne.  Female  influence  more  and  more  directed 
the  general  course  of  affairs ;  and  the  vices  of  conscious  weak- 
ness, perfidy  and  barbarity  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  the 
mainstays  of  government. 

Darius  Nothus  died  B.C.  405,  and  was  succeeded  by  his 
eldest  son,  Arsaces,  who  on  his  accession  took  the  name  of 



Artaxerxes.  Artaxerxes  II.,  called  by  the  Greeks  Mnemon 
on  account  of  the  excellence  of  his  memory,  had  from  the  very 
first  a  rival  in  his  brother  Cyrus.  Parysatis  had  endeavored 
to  gain  the  kingdom  for  her  younger  son,  while  the  succession 
was  still  open;  and  when  her  efforts  failed,  and  Artaxerxes 
was  named  to  succeed  his  father,  she  encouraged  Cyrus  to 
vindicate  his  claim  by  arms.  It  would  undoubtedly  have  been 
advantageous  to  Persia  that  the  stronger-minded  of  the  two 
brothers  should  have  been  the  victor  in  the  struggle ;  but  the 
fortune  of  war  decided  otherwise.  Cyrus  fell  at  Cunaxa,  a 
victim  to  his  own  impetuosity;  and  Artaxerxes  II.  obtained 
undisputed  possession  of  the  throne,  which  he  held  for  above 
forty  years. 

The  expedition  of  Cyrus  produced  a  complete  change  in  the 
relations  between  Persia  and  Sparta.  Sparta  had  given  Cyrus 
important  assistance,  and  thereby  irremediably  offended  the 
Persian  monarch.  The  result  of  the  expedition  encouraged 
her  to  precipitate  the  rupture  which  she  had  provoked.  Hav- 
ing secured  the  services  of  the  Ten  Thousand,  she  attacked 
the  Persians  in  Asia  Minor ;  and  her  troops,  under  Thimbron, 
Dercyllidas,  and  Agesilaiis,  made  the  Persians  tremble  for  their 
Asiatic  dominion.  Wisely  resolving  to  find  her  enemy  em- 
ployment at  home,  Persia  brought  about  a  league  between  the 
chief  of  the  secondary  powers  of  Greece — Argos,  Thebes, 
Athens,  and  Corinth — supplying  them  with  the  sinews  of  war, 
and  contributing  a  contingent  of  ships,  which  at  once  turned 
the  scale,  and  by  the  battle  of  Cnidus,  B.C.  394,  gave  the  mas- 
tery of  the  sea  to  the  confederates.  Agesilaiis  was  recalled  to 
Europe,  and  Sparta  found  herself  so  pressed  that  she  was  glad 
to  agjee  to  the  peace  known  as  that  of  Antalcidas,  whereby 
the  Greeks  of  Europe  generally  relinquished  to  Persia  their 
Asiatic  brethren,  and  allowed  the  Great  King  to  assume  the 
part  of  authoritative  arbiter  in  the  Grecian  quarrels,  B.C.  387. 

Glorious  as  the  peace  of  Antalcidas  was  for  Persia,  and  satis- 
factory as  it  must  have  been  to  her  to  see  her  most  formidable 
enemies  engaged  in  internecine  conflict  one  with  another,  yet 
the  internal  condition  of  the  empire  showed  no  signs  of  im- 
provement. The  revolt  of  Evagoras,  Greek  tyrant  of  Salamis 
in  Cyprus,  was  with  difficulty  put  down,  after  a  long  and  doubt- 


ful  struggle,  B.C.  391  to  379,  in  which  disaflFection  was  exhib- 
ited by  the  Phoenicians,  the  Cilicians,  the  Carians,  and  the 
Idumaean  Arabs.  The  terms  made  with  Evagoras  were  a  con- 
fession of  weakness,  since  he  retained  his  sovereignty,  and 
merely  consented  to  pay  the  Persian  king  an  annual  tribute. 

The  revolt  of  the  Cadusians  on  the  shores  of  the  Caspian 
about  this  same  period,  B.C.  384,  gave  Artaxerxes  II.  an  op- 
portunity of  trying  his  own  qualifications  for  military  com- 
mand. The  trial  was  unfavorable;  for  he  was  only  saved 
from  disaster  by  the  skill  of  Tiribazus,  one  of  his  officers, 
who  procured  with  consummate  art  the  submission  of  the 

Artaxerxes,  however,  proud  of  the  success  which  might  be 
said,  on  the  whole,  to  have  attended  his  arms,  was  not  content 
with  the  mere  recovery  of  newly-revolted  provinces,  but  as- 
pired to  restore  to  the  empire  its  ancient  limits.  His  generals 
commenced  the  reduction  of  the  Greek  islands  by  the  occupa- 
tion of  Samos;  and  in  B.C.  375,  having  secured  the  services 
of  the  Athenian  commander,  Iphicrates,  he  sent  a  great  expe- 
dition against  Egypt,  which  was  intended  to  reconquer  that 
country.  Iphicrates,  however,  and  Phamabazus,  the  Persian 
commander,  quarrelled.  The  expedition  wholly  failed;  and 
the  knowledge  of  the  failure  provoked  a  general  spirit  of  dis- 
affection in  the  western  satrapies,  which  brought  the  empire 
to  the  verge  of  destruction.  But  corruption  and  treachery, 
now  the  usual  Persian  weapons,  were  successful  once  more. 
Orontes  and  Rheomithras  took  bribes  to  desert  their  confed- 
erates; Datames  was  entrapped  and  executed.  An  attempt 
of  Egypt,  favored  by  Sparta,  and  promoted  by  Agesilaiis  in 
person,  B.C.  361,  to  annex  Phoenicia  and  Syria,  was  frustrated 
by  internal  commotions,  and  the  reig^  of  Artaxerxes  closed 
without  any  further  contraction  of  the  Persian  territory. 

The  court  continued  during  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  II.  a 
scene  of  horrors  and  atrocities  of  the  same  kind  that  had  pre- 
vailed since  the  time  of  Xerxes  I.  Parj-satis,  the  queen- 
mother,  was  its  presiding  spirit ;  and  the  long  catalogue  of  her 
cruel  and  bloody  deeds  is  almost  without  a  parallel  even  in  the 
history  of  Oriental  despotisms.  The  members  of  the  royal 
household  became  now  the  special  objects  of  jealousy  to  one 



another;  family  affection  had  disappeared;  and  executions, 
assassinations,  and  suicides  decimated  the  royal  stock. 

Ochus,  the  youngest  legitimate  son  of  Artaxerxes  II.,  who 
had  obtained  the  throne  by  the  execution  of  his  eldest  and  the 
suicide  of  his  second  brother,  assumed  on  his  accession  (B.C. 
359)  the  name  of  his  father,  and  is  known  as  Artaxerxes  III. 
He  was  a  prince  of  more  vigor  and  spirit  than  any  monarch 
since  Darius  Hystaspis ;  and  the  power,  reputation,  and  gen- 
eral prosperity  of  the  empire  were  greatly  advanced  under  his 
administration.  The  court,  however,  was  incurably  corrupt; 
and  Ochus  can  not  be  said  to  have  at  all  improved  its  condition. 
Rather,  it  was  a  just  Nemesis  by  which,  after  a  reign  of  twenty- 
one  years,  B.C.  359  to  338,  he  fell  a  victim  to  a  conspiracy  of 
the  seraglio. 

The  first  step  taken  by  the  new  king  was  the  complete  de- 
struction of  the  royal  family,  or,  at  any  rate,  of  all  but  its  more 
remote  branches.  Having  thus  secured  himself  against  rivals, 
he  proceeded  to  arrange  and  execute  some  important  enter- 

The  revolt  of  Artabazus  in  Asia  Minor,  fomented  at  first 
by  Athens,  and  afterwards  by  Thebes,  was  important  both  as 
delaying  the  grand  enterprise  of  Ochus,  and  as  leading  to  the 
first  betrayal  of  a  spirit  inimical  to  Persia,  on  the  part  of  Philip 
of  Macedon.  Philip  received  Artabazus  as  a  refugee  at  his 
court,  and  thus  provoked  those  hostile  measures  to  which 
Ochus  had  recourse  later  in  his  reign — measures  which  fur- 
nished a  ground  of  complaint  to  Alexander. 

About  B.C.  351,  Ochus  marched  a  large  army  into  Egypt, 
bent  on  recovering  that  province  to  the  empire.  Nectanebo, 
however,  the  Egyptian  king,  met  him  in  the  field,  defeated  him, 
and  completely  repulsed  his  expedition.  Ochus  returned  to 
Persia  to  collect  fresh  forces,  and  immediately  the  whole  of  the 
West  was  in  a  flame.  Phoenicia  reclaimed  her  independence, 
and  placed  herself  under  the  government  of  Tennes,  king  of 
Sidon.  Cyprus  revolted,  and  set  up  nine  native  sovereigns. 
In  Asia  Minor  a  dozen  petty  chieftains  assumed  the  airs  of 
actual  monarchs.  Ochus,  however,  nothing  daunted,  em- 
ployed his  satraps  to  quell  or  check  the  revolts,  while  he  him- 
self collected  a  second  armament,  obtained  the  services  of 



Greek  generals,  and  hired  Greek  mercenaries  to  the  number 
of  10,000.  He  then  proceeded  in  person  against  Phoenicia  and 
Egypt,  B.C.  346. 

Partly  by  force,  but  mainly  by  treachery,  Sidon  was  taken 
and  Phoenicia  reduced  to  subjection;  Mentor,  with  4,000 
Greeks,  deserting  and  joining  the  Persians.  Egypt  was  then 
a  second  time  invaded;  Nectanebo  was  defeated  and  driven 
from  the  country ;  and  the  Egyptian  satrapy  was  recovered. 
The  glory  which  Ochus  thus  acquired  was  gjeat ;  but  the  value 
of  his  success,  as  an  indication  of  reviving  Persian  vigor,  was 
diminished  by  the  fact  that  it  was  mainly  owing  to  the  conduct 
of  Greek  generals  and  the  courage  of  Greek  mercenaries.  Still, 
to  Bagoas,  the  eunuch,  and  to  Ochus  himself,  some  of  the  credit 
must  be  allowed ;  and  the  vigorous  administration  which  fol- 
lowed on  the  Egfvptian  campaign  gave  promise  of  a  real  recov- 
ery of  pristine  force  and  strength.  But  this  prospect  was  soon 
clouded  by  a  fresh  revolution  in  the  palace,  which  removed  the 
most  capable  of  the  later  Achaemenian  monarchs. 

A  savage  cruelty  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  features  in 
the  character  of  Ochus;  and  his  fierceness  and  violence  had 
rendered  him  unpopular  with  his  subjects,  when  the  eunuch 
Bagoas,  his  chief  minister,  ventured  on  his  assassination,  B.C. 
338.  Bagoas  placed  Arses,  the  king's  youngest  son,  upon  the 
throne,  and  destroyed  the  rest  of  the  seed  royal.  It  was  his 
object  to  reign  as  minister  of  a  prince  who  was  little  more  than 
a  boy ;  but  after  two  years  he  grew  alarmed  at  some  threats 
that  Arses  had  uttered,  and  secured  himself  by  a  fresh  murder. 
Not  venturing  to  assume  the  vacant  crown  himself,  he  con- 
ferred it  on  a  friend,  named  Codomannus — perhaps  descended 
from  Darius  II. — who  mounted  the  throne  under  the  title  of 
Darius  III.,  and  immediately  put  to  death  the  wretch  to  whom 
he  owed  his  elevation,  B.C.  336. 

Superior  morally  to  the  greater  number  of  his  predecessors, 
Darius  III.  did  not  possess  sufficient  intellectual  ability  to  en- 
able him  to  grapple  with  the  difficulties  of  the  circumstances 
in  which  he  was  placed.  The  Macedonian  invasion  of  Asia, 
which  had  commenced  before  he  mounted  the  throne,  failed 
to  alarm  him  as  it  ought  to  have  done.  He  probably  despised 
Alexander's  youth  and  inexperience ;  at  any  rate,  it  is  certain 


that  he  took  no  sufficient  measures  to  guard  his  country 
against  the  attack  with  which  it  was  threatened.  Had  Per- 
sia joined  the  European  enemies  of  Alexander  in  the  first 
year  of  his  reign,  the  Macedonian  conquest  of  Asia  might 
never  have  taken  place.  Still,  Darius  was  not  wholly  want- 
ing to  the  occasion.  An  important  native  and  mercenary 
force  was  collected  in  Mysia  to  oppose  the  invader,  if  he  should 
land ;  and  a  large  fleet  was  sent  to  the  coast,  which  ought  to 
have  made  the  passage  of  the  Hellespont  a  matter  of  difficulty. 
But  the  remissness  and  over-confidence  of  the  Persian  leaders 
rendered  these  measures  ineffectual.  Alexander's  landing  was 
unopposed,  and  the  battle  of  the  Granicus  (B.C.  334),  which 
might  have  been  avoided,  caused  the  immediate  loss  of  all 
Asia  Minor.  Soon  afterwards,  the  death  of  Memnon  deprived 
Darius  of  his  last  chance  of  success  by  disconcerting  all  his 
plans  for  the  invasion  of  Europe.  Compelled  to  act  wholly 
on  the  defensive,  he  levied  two  great  armies,  and  fought  two 
great  battles  against  his  foe.  In  the  first  of  these,  at  Issus 
(B.C.  333),  he  no  doubt  threw  away  all  chance  of  victory  by 
engaging  his  adversary  in  a  defile ;  but  in  the  second  all  the 
advantages  that  nature  had  placed  on  the  side  of  the  Persians 
were  given  full  play.  The  battle  of  Arbela  (Oct.  i,  B.C.  331), 
fought  in  the  broad  plains  of  Adiabene,  on  ground  carefully 
selected  and  prepared  by  the  Persians,  fairly  tested  the  relative 
strength  of  the  two  powers ;  and  when  it  was  lost,  the  empire 
of  Persia  came  naturally  to  an  end.  The  result  of  the  contest 
might  have  been  predicted  from  the  time  of  the  battle  of  Mara- 
thon. The  inveterate  tendency  of  Greece  to  disunion,  and  the 
liberal  employment  of  Persian  gold,  had  deferred  a  result  that 
could  not  be  prevented,  for  nearly  two  centuries.* 

*  For  the  details  of  the  Greek  wars  with  Persia,  see  Book  III.,  Third 
Period  ;  and  for  those  of  the  war  between  Darius  and  Alexander,  see 
Book  IV.,  First  Period. 



From  the  original  painting  W  Sir  Frederick  Leigbion. 




Hellas,  or  Greece  Proper,  is  a  peninsula  of  moderate  size, 
bounded  on  the  north  by  Olympus,  the  Cambunian  moun- 
tains, and  an  artificial  line  prolonged  westward  to  the  Acroce- 
raunian  promontory;  on  the  west  by  the  Adriatic  or  Ionian 
Gulf;  on  the  south  by  the  Mediterranean;  and  on  the  east 
by  the  /Egean  Sea.  Its  greatest  length  from  north  to  south, 
between  the  Cambunian  mountains  and  Cape  Taenarus,  is 
about  250  English  miles ;  its  greatest  width,  between  the  Acro- 
ceraunian  promontory  and  the  mouth  of  the  Peneus,  or  ag^in 
between  the  coast  of  Acamania  and  Marathon  in  Attica,  is 
about  180  miles.  Its  superficial  extent  has  been  estimated  at 
35,000  square  miles,  which  is  somewhat  less  than  the  size  of 

The  geographical  features  which  most  distinctly  characterize 
the  Hellenic  Peninsula  are  the  number  of  its  mountains  and 
the  extent  of  its  sea-board.  Numerous  deep  bays  strongly  in- 
dent the  coast,  while  long  and  narrow  promontories  run  out 
far  into  the  sea  on  all  sides,  causing  the  proportion  of  coast 
to  area  to  be  very  much  greater  than  is  found  in  any  other 
country  of  Southern  Europe.  Excellent  harbors  abound ;  the 
tideless  sea  has  few  dangers ;  off  the  coast  lie  numerous  littoral 
islands  of  great  beauty  and  fertility.  Nature  has  done  her 
utmost  to  tempt  the  population  to  maritime  pursuits,  and  to 
make  them  cultivate  the  art  of  navigation.  Communication 
between  most  parts  of  the  country  is  shorter  and  easier  by  sea 
than  by  land;  for  the  mountain-chains  which  intersect  the 
Vou  I.— 7  97 


region  in  all  directions  are  for  the  most  part  lofty  and  rugged, 
traversable  only  by  a  few  passes,  often  blocked  by  snow  in 
the  winter-time. 

The  Mountain-system  of  Greece  may  best  be  regarded  as 
an  offshoot  from  the  great  European  chain  of  the  Alps.  At 
a  point  a  little  to  the  west  of  the  2ist  degree  of  longitude  (E. 
from  Greenwich),  the  Albanian  Alps  throw  out  a  spur,  which, 
under  the  names  of  Scardus,  Pindus,  Corax,  Taphiassus,  Pana- 
chaicus,  Lampea,  Pholoe,  Parrhasius,  and  Taygetus,  runs  in 
a  direction  a  little  east  of  south  from  the  42d  parallel  to  the 
promontory  of  Taenarum.  From  this  great  longitudinal  chain 
are  thrown  out,  at  brief  intervals  on  either  side,  a  series  of 
lateral  branches,  having  a  general  latitudinal  direction ;  from 
which  again  there  start  ofif  other  cross  ranges,  which  follow 
the  course  of  the  main  chain,  or  backbone  of  the  region,  point- 
ing nearly  south-east.  The  latitudinal  chains  are  especially 
marked  and  important  in  the  eastern  division  of  the  country, 
between  Pindus  and  the  ^gean.  Here  are  thrown  off,  suc- 
cessively, the  Cambunian  and  Olympic  range,  which  formed 
the  northern  boundary  of  Greece  Proper ;  the  range  of  Othrys, 
which  separated  Thessaly  from  Malis  and  ^niania;  that  of 
(Eta,  which  divided  between  Malis  and  Doris;  and  that  of 
Parnassus,  Helicon,  Cithaeron,  and  Parnes,  which,  starting 
from  near  Delphi,  terminated  in  the  Rhamnusian  promontory, 
opposite  Euboea,  forming  in  its  eastern  portion  a  strong  bar- 
rier between  Boeotia  and  Attica.  Of  a  similar  character  on  the 
opposite  side  were  Mount  Lingus  in  Northern  Epirus,  which 
struck  westward  from  Pindus  at  a  point  nearly  opposite  the 
Cambunians ;  together  with  Mount  Tymphrestus  in  Northern, 
and  Mount  Bomius  in  Central  ^tolia.  In  the  Peloponnese, 
the  main  chain,  which  stretched  from  Rhium  to  Taenarum, 
threw  off,  on  the  west.  Mount  Scollis,  which  divided  Achaea 
from  Elis,  and  Mount  Elaeon,  which  separated  Elis  from  Mes- 
senia ;  while,  towards  the  east,  the  lateral  branches  were,  first, 
one  which,  under  the  names  of  Erymanthus,  Aroania,  and  Cyl- 
lene,  divided  Achaea  from  Arcadia,  and  which  was  then  pro- 
longed eastward  to  the  Scyllaean  promontory  in  Argolis ;  and, 
secondly.  Mount  Parthenium,  which  intervened  between  Ar- 
golis and  Laconia.    Of  secondary  longitudinal  chains  the  only 


ones  which  need  special  mention  are  the  range  of  PeHon  and 
Ossa,  which  shut  in  Thessaly  on  the  east ;  that  of  Pentelicus, 
Hymettus,  and  Anhydrus,  in  Attica;  and  that  of  Pamon  in 
the  Peloponnese,  which  stretched  from  near  Tegea  to  Malea. 

The  Mountain-chains  of  Greece  occupy  so  large  a  portion 
of  the  area  that  but  little  is  left  for  level  ground  or  plains.  Still, 
a  certain  number  of  such  spaces  existed,  and  were  the  more 
valued  for  their  rarity.  The  greater  portion  of  Thessaly  was 
a  vast  plain,  surrounded  by  mountains,  and  drained  by  a  single 
river,  the  Peneus.  In  Boeotia  there  were  two  large  plains,  one 
the  marshy  plain  of  the  Cephissus,  much  of  which  was  occu- 
pied by  Lake  Copais ;  and  the  other,  the  plain  of  Asopus,  on 
the  verge  of  which  stood  Thebes,  Thespiae,  and  Plataea.  Attica 
boasted  of  three  principal  plains,  that  of  Eleusis,  adjoining  the 
city  of  the  name,  that  of  Athens  itself,  and  that  of  Marathon. 
In  Western  and  Southern  Peloponnese  were  the  lowlands  of 
Cava  Elis  on  either  side  of  the  Peneus  river,  of  Macaria,  about 
the  mouth  of  the  Pamisus,  and  of  Helos,  at  the  embouchure 
of  the  Eurotas ;  in  the  central  region  were  the  high  upland 
plains,  or  basins,  of  Tegea,  Mantinea,  Pheneus,  and  Orchome- 
nus;  while  Eastern  Peloponnese  boasted  the  fertile  alluvium 
of  Argos,  watered  by  the  Chimarrhus,  Erasinus,  Phrixus, 
Charadrus,  and  Inachus. 

The  Rivers  of  Greece  were  numerous,  but  of  small  volume, 
the  majority  being  little  more  than  winter  torrents,  and  carry- 
ing little  or  no  water  in  the  summer-time.  The  only  streams 
of  any  real  magnitude  were  the  Acheloiis,  which  rose  in  Epirus, 
and  divided  ^tolia  from  Acarnania;  the  northern  Peneus, 
which  drained  the  great  Thessalian  plain;  and  the  Alpheus, 
the  stream  on  whose  banks  stood  Olympia.  Among  secondary 
rivers  may  be  noticed  the  Thyamis,  Oropus,  and  Arachthus, 
in  Epirus;  the  Evenus  and  Daphnus,  in  /Etolia;  the  Spcr- 
cheius,  in  Malis ;  the  Cephissus  and  Asopus,  in  Boeotia ;  the 
Peneus,  Pamisus,  Eurotas,  and  Inachus,  in  the  Peloponnese. 

It  is  a  characteristic  of  the  Grecian  rivers  to  disappear  in 
Catabothra  or  subterraneous  passages.  The  limestone  rocks 
are  full  of  caves  and  fissures,  while  the  plains  consist  often  of 
land-locked  basins  which  present  to  the  eye  no  manifest  outlet. 
Here  the  streams  commonly  form  lakes,  the  waters  of  which 


flow  off  through  an  underground  channel,  sometimes  visible, 
sometimes  only  conjectured  to  exist,  to  the  sea.  Instances  of 
such  visible  outlets  are  those  by  which  the  Cephissus  finds  an 
egress  from  Lake  Copais,  in  Boeotia  (where  art,  however,  has 
assisted  nature),  and  those  by  which  the  superfluous  waters 
are  carried  ofif  from  most  of  the  lakes  in  the  Peloponnese. 
Invisible  channels  are  believed  to  give  a  means  of  escape  to 
the  waters  of  Lakes  Hylice  and  Trephia,  in  Boeotia. 

The  Lakes  of  Greece  are  numerous,  but  not  very  remark- 
able. The  largest  is  Lake  Copais,  in  Boeotia,  the  area  of  which 
has  been  estimated  at  forty-one  square  miles.  Next  in  size  to 
this  is,  probably,  Boebeis,  in  Thessaly,  formed  mainly  by  the 
overflowings  of  the  Peneus.  To  these  may  be  added  Lake 
Pambotis,  in  Epirus,  on  the  southern  shores  of  which  was  the 
oracular  shrine  of  Dodona ;  Lakes  Trichonis  and  Conope,  in 
./Etolia,  between  the  Evenus  and  Acheloiis;  Lake  Nessonis, 
near  Lake  Boebeis,  in  Thessaly ;  Lake  Xynias,  in  Achaea 
Phthiotis;  the  smaller  Boeotian  lakes,  Hylice  and  Trephia; 
and  the  Arcadian  lakes  of  Pheneus,  Stymphalus,  Orchomenus, 
Mantinea,  and  Tegea. 

It  has  been  observed  that  the  littoral  islands  of  Greece  were 
both  numerous  and  important.  The  principal  one  was  Euboea, 
which  lay  as  a  great  breakwater  along  the  whole  east  coast  of 
Attica,  Boeotia,  and  Locris,  extending  in  length  rather  more 
than  lOO  miles,  with  an  average  breadth  of  about  fifteen  miles. 
Very  inferior  to  this  in  size,  but  nearly  equal  in  importance, 
was  Corcyra,  on  the  opposite  or  western  side  of  the  peninsula, 
which  had  a  length  of  forty,  and  a  breadth  varying  from  fifteen 
to  five  miles.  Besides  these,  there  lay  off  the  west  coast  Paxos, 
Leucas  or  Leucadia,  Ithaca,  Cephallenia,  and  Zacynthus  (now 
Zante) ;  off  the  south,  the  CEnussae  and  Cythera ;  off  the  east, 
Tiparenus,  Hydria,  Calauria,  ^gina,  Salamis,  Cythnus,  Ceos, 
Helene,  Andros,  Scyros,  Peparethus,  Halonnesus,  and  Scia- 
thus.  From  the  south-eastern  shores  of  Euboea  and  Attica, 
the  Cyclades  and  Sporades  extended  in  a  continuous  series, 
like  a  set  of  stepping-stones,  across  the  .^gean  Sea  to  Asia. 
On  the  other  side,  from  Corcyra  and  the  Acroceraunian  prom- 
ontory, the  eye  could  see,  on  a  clear  day,  the  opposite  coast 
of  Italy. 


The  natural  division  of  Greece  is  into  Northern,  Central, 
and  Southern.  Northern  Greece  extends  from  the  north  boun- 
dary-Hne  to  the  point  where  the  eastern  and  western  shores 
are  respectively  indented  by  the  Gulfs  of  Malis  and  Ambracia 
or  Actiuni.  Central  Greece  reaches  from  this  point  to  the  Isth- 
mus of  Corinth.  Southern  Greece  is  identical  with  the  Pelo- 

Northern  Greece  contained  in  ancient  times  two  principal 
countries,  Thessaly  and  Epirus,  which  were  separated  from 
each  other  by  the  high  chain  of  Pindus.  Besides  these,  there 
were,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  mountain  barrier,  Magnesia 
and  Achaea  Phthiotis ;  and  in  the  mountain  region  itself,  half- 
way between  the  two  gulfs,  Dolopia,  or  the  country  of  the 

Thessaly,  the  largest  and  most  fertile  country  of  Greece 
Proper,  was  almost  identical  with  the  basin  of  the  Peneus. 
It  was  a  region  nearly  circular  in  shape,  with  a  diameter  of 
about  seventy  miles.  Mountains  surrounded  it  on  every  side, 
from  which  descended  numerous  streams,  all  of  them  converg- 
ing, and  flowing  ultimately  into  the  Peneus.  The  united  waters 
passed  to  the  sea  through  a  single  narrow  gorge,  the  celebrated 
vale  of  Tempe,  which  was  said  to  have  been  caused  by  an 
earthquake.  Thessaly  was  divided  into  four  provinces: — 
(a)  Perrhsebia  on  the  north,  along  the  skirts  of  Olympus  and 
the  Cambunians;  (b)  Histiaeotis,  towards  the  west,  on  the 
flanks  of  Pindus,  and  along  the  upper  course  of  the  Peneus; 
(c)  Thessaliotis,  towards  the  south,  bordering  on  Achaea  Phthi- 
otis and  Dolopia;  and  (d)  Pelasgiotis,  towards  the  east,  be- 
tween the  Enipeus  and  Magnesia.  Its  chief  cities  were,  in 
Perrhaebia,  Gonni  and  Phalanna;  in  Histiaeotis,  Gomphi  and 
Tricca ;  in  Thessaliotis,  Cierium  and  Pharsalus ;  in  Pelasgio- 
tis, Larissa  and  Pherae. 

Epirus,  the  next  largest  country  to  Thessaly,  was  in  shape 
an  oblong  square,  seventy  miles  long  from  north  to  south,  and 
about  fifty-five  miles  across.  It  consisted  of  a  series  of  lofty 
mountains,  twisted  spurs  from  Pindus,  with  narrow  valleys 
between,  along  the  courses  of  the  numerous  streams.  The 
main  divisions  were — on  the  east,  Molossis ;  chief  cities.  Do- 
dona,  Ambracia :  to  the  north-west,  Chaonia ;  cities,  Phoenic6, 


Buthrotum,  Cestx-ia:  to  the  south-west,  Thesprotia;  cities, 
Pandosia,  Cassope,  and  in  later  times,  Nicopolis.  Epirus,  dur- 
ing the  real  historical  period,  was  Illyrian  rather  than  Greek, 

Magnesia  and  Achaea  Phthiotis  are  sometimes  reckoned  as 
parts  of  Thessaly;  but,  in  the  early  times,  at  any  rate,  they 
were  distinct  countries.  Magnesia  was  the  coast-tract  between 
the  mouth  of  the  Peneus  and  the  Pagasaean  Gulf,  comprising 
the  two  connected  ranges  of  Ossa  and  Pelion,  with  the  country 
immediately  at  their  base.  It  measured  in  length  about  sixty- 
five,  and  in  width  from  ten  to  fifteen  miles.  Its  chief  cities 
were  Myrae,  Meliboea,  and  Casthansea  upon  the  eastern  coast; 
lolcus,  in  the  Gulf  of  Pagasae ;  and  Bcebe,  near  Lake  Bcebeis, 
in  the  interior.  Achaea  Phthiotis  was  the  tract  immediately 
south  of  Thessaly,  extending  from  the  Pagasaean  Gulf  on  the 
east  to  the  part  of  Pindus  inhabited  by  the  Dolopes.  It  was 
a  region  nearly  square  in  shape,  each  side  of  the  square  meas- 
uring about  thirty  miles.  It  consisted  of  Mount  Othrys,  with 
the  country  at  its  base.  The  chief  cities  were  Halos,  Thebae 
Phthiotides,  Itonus,  Melitaea,  Lamia,  and  Xyniae,  on  Lake 

Dolopia,  or  the  country  of  the  Dolopes,  comprised  a  portion 
of  the  range  of  Pindus,  together  with  the  more  western  part 
of  Othrys,  and  the  upper  valleys  of  several  streams  which  ran 
into  the  Acheloiis.  It  was  a  small  tract,  not  more  than  forty 
miles  long  by  fifteen  broad,  and  was  very  rugged  and  moun- 

Central  Greece,  or  the  tract  intervening  between  Northern 
Greece  and  the  Peloponnese,  contained  eleven  countries ;  viz., 
Acarnania,  .^tolia.  Western  Locris,  ^niania,  Doris,  Malis, 
Eastern  Locris,  Phocis,  Boeotia,  Attica,  and  Megaris. 

Acarnania,  the  most  western  of  the  countries,  was  a  trian- 
gfular  tract,  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Ambracian  Gulf,  on 
the  east  by  the  Acheloiis,  and  on  the  south-west  by  the  Adri- 
atic. Its  sides  measured  respectively  fifty,  thirty-five,  and 
thirty  miles.  Its  chief  cities  were,  in  the  interior.  Stratus; 
on  the  coast,  Anactorium,  Solium,  Astacus,  and  CEniadae. 

.-^tolia  adjoined  Acarnania  on  the  east,  and  extended  in 
that  direction  as  far  as  ^niania  and  Doris.  On  the  north  it 
was  bounded  by  Dolopia ;  on  the  south  by  the  Corinthian  Gulf. 



In  size  it  was  about  double  Acamania,  and  its  area  considerably 
exceeded  that  of  any  other  country  in  this  part  of  Hellas.  It 
was  generally  mountainous,  but  contained  a  fiat  and  marshy 
tract  between  the  mouths  of  the  Evenus  and  Acheloiis;  and 
somewhat  farther  to  the  north,  a  large  plain,  in  which  were 
two  gjeat  lakes,  the  Conope  and  the  Trichonis.  Its  chief  cities 
were  Pleuron,  Calydon,  and  Thermon. 

Western  Locris,  or  the  country  of  the  Locri  Ozolae,  lay  on 
the  coast  of  the  Corinthian  Gulf,  immediately  to  the  east  of 
iEtolia.  Its  length  along  the  coast  was  about  thirty-seven 
miles,  and  its  depth  inland  from  about  two  miles  to  twenty- 
three.  Its  chief  cities  were  Naupactus  on  the  coast,  and  Am- 
phissa  in  the  interior. 

iEniania,  or  JEtxa.,  as  it  was  sometimes  called,  lay  also  east 
of  i^tolia,  but  towards  the  north,  whereas  Locris  adjoined  it 
towards  the  south,  ^niania  was  separated  from  ^tolia  by 
the  continuation  of  Pindus  southward,  and  was  bounded  on 
the  north  by  Othrys  and  on  the  south  by  CEta.  It  lay  thus  on 
the  course  of  the  upper  Spercheius  River.  It  was  an  oval- 
shaped  country,  about  twenty-seven  miles  long  by  eighteen 
broad.    The  chief  town  was  Hypata. 

Doris  intervened  between  ^Eniania  and  Western  Locris. 
This  was  a  small  and  rugged  country,  inclosed  between  Mounts 
Parnassus  and  Callidromus,  on  the  upper  course  of  the  Pindus 
River,  a  tributary  of  the  Boeotian  Cephissus.  Its  greatest 
length  was  about  seventeen  and  its  greatest  width  about  ten 
miles.  It  contained  the  four  cities  of  Pindus,  Erineus,  Boeum, 
and  Cytinium,  whence  it  was  known  as  the  Dorian  Tetrapolis. 

Malis  lay  north  of  Doris,  south  of  Achaea  Phthiotis,  and 
cast  of  i^niania.  It  was  even  smaller  than  Doris,  which  it 
resembled  in  shape.  The  greatest  length  was  about  fifteen 
and  the  greatest  width  about  eight  miles.  The  chief  cities 
were  Anticyra  and  Trachis;  and,  in  later  times,  Heraclea. 
At  the  extreme  eastern  edge  of  Malis,  between  the  mountains 
and  the  sea,  was  the  pass  of  Thermopylae. 

Eastern  Locris  lay  next  to  Malis,  along  the  shore  of  the 
Euripus  or  Euboean  channel.  It  was  politically  divided  into 
two  parts,  Epicnemidia  and  Opuntia;  which,  in  later  times, 
were  physically  separated  by  a  small  strip  of  ground,  reckoned 


as  belonging  to  Phocis.  Epicnemidia  extended  about  seven- 
teen miles,  from  near  Thermopylae  to  near  Daphnus,  averaging 
about  eight  miles  in  width.  Its  chief  town  was  Cnemides. 
Opuntia  reached  from  Alope  to  beyond  the  mouth  of  the  Ce- 
phissus,  a  distance  of  twenty-six  miles.  Its  width  was  about 
equal  to  that  of  Epicnemidia.  It  derived  its  name  from  its 
chief  city,  Opus. 

Phocis  reached  from  Eastern  Locris  on  the  north  to  the 
Corinthian  Gulf  on  the  south.  It  was  bounded  on  the  west  by 
Doris  and  Western  Locris,  on  the  east  by  Boeotia.  It  was 
squarish  in  shape,  with  an  average  length  of  twenty-five  and 
an  average  breadth  of  twenty  miles.  The  central  and  southern 
parts  were  extremely  mountainous ;  but  along  the  course  of 
the  Cephissus  and  its  tributaries  there  were  some  fertile  plains. 
The  chief  cities  were  Delphi,  on  the  southern  flank  of  Mount 
Parnassus,  Elatsea,  Parapotamii,  Panopeus,  Abae,  famous  for 
its  temple,  and  Hyampolis. 

Boeotia  was  above  twice  the  size  of  Phocis,  having  a  length 
of  fifty  and  an  average  breadth  of  twenty-three  miles.  It  was 
generally  flat  and  marshy,  but  contained  the  mountain  range 
of  HeUcon  on  the  south,  and  the  lofty  hills  known  as  Ptoiis, 
Messapius,  Hypatus,  and  Teumessus,  towards  the  more  eastern 
portion  of  the  country.  The  lake  Copais  covered  an  area  of 
forty-one  square  miles,  or  above  one-thirtieth  of  the  surface. 
There  were  also  two  smaller  lakes  between  Copais  and  the 
Eubcean  Sea,  called  respectively  Hylice  and  Trephia.  The 
chief  rivers  of  Boeotia  were  (besides  the  Cephissus,  which  en- 
tered it  from  Phocis)  the  Asopus,  the  Termessus,  the  Thes- 
pius,  and  the  Oeroe.  Boeotia  was  noted  for  the  number  and 
greatness  of  its  cities.  The  chief  of  these  was  Thebes;  but 
the  following  were  also  of  importance :  Orchomenus,  Thespiae, 
Tanagra,  Coronaea,  Lebadeia,  Haliartus,  Chaeroneia,  Leuctra, 
and  Copae. 

Attica  was  the  foreland  or  peninsula  which  projected  from 
Boeotia  to  the  south-east.  Its  length,  from  Cithaeron  to  Su- 
nium,  was  seventy  miles;  its  greatest  width,  from  Munychia 
to  Rhamnus,  was  thirty  miles.  Its  area  has  been  estimated  at 
720  square  miles,  or  about  one-fourth  less  than  Boeotia.  The 
general  character  of  the  tract  was  mountainous  and  infertile. 


On  the  north,  Cithaeron,  Fames,  and  Phelleus  formed  a  con- 
tinuous Une  running  nearly  east  and  west ;  from  this  descend- 
ed three  spurs:  one,  which  divided  Attica  from  the  Megarid, 
known  as  Kerata;  another,  which  separated  the  Eleusinian 
from  the  Athenian  plain,  called  iEgaleos ;  and  the  third,  which 
ran  out  from  Fames  by  Decelea  and  Marathon  to  Cape  Zoster, 
named  in  the  north  Pentelicus,  in  the  centre  Hymettus,  and 
near  the  south  coast  Anhydrus.  The  towns  of  Attica,  except 
Athens,  were  unimportant.  Its  rivers,  the  two  Cephissuses, 
the  Ilissus,  the  Erasinus,  and  the  Charadrus,  were  little  more 
than  torrent-courses. 

Megaris,  which  adjoined  on  Attica  to  the  west,  occupied 
the  northern  portion  of  the  Isthmus  uniting  Central  Greece 
with  the  Peloponnese.  It  was  the  smallest  of  all  the  central 
Greek  countries,  excepting  Doris  and  Malis,  being  about  four- 
teen miles  long  by  eleven  broad,  and  containing  less  than  150 
square  miles.  It  had  one  city  only,  viz.,  Megara,  with  the 
ports  Nisaea  and  Pegfae. 

Southern  Greece,  or  the  Peloponnese,  contained  eleven 
countries — viz.,  Corinth,  Sicyon,  Achaea,  Elis,  Arcadia,  Mes- 
senia,  Laconia,  Argolis,  Epidauria,  Troezenia,  and  Hermionis. 

The  territory  of  Corinth  adjoined  Megaris,  and  included  the 
larger  portion  of  the  Isthmus,  together  with  a  tract  of  some- 
what greater  magnitude  in  the  Peloponnese.  Its  greatest 
length  was  twenty-five  and  its  greatest  width  about  twenty- 
three  miles.  Its  shape,  however,  was  extremely  irregular ;  and 
its  area  can  not  be  reckoned  at  more  than  230  square  miles. 
The  only  city  of  importance  was  Corinth,  the  capital,  which  had 
a  port  on  either  sea — on  the  Corinthian  Gulf,  Lechaeum,  and 
on  the  Saronic  Gulf,  Cenchreae. 

Sicyon,  or  Sicyonia,  adjoined  Corinth  on  the  west.  It  lay 
along  the  shore  of  the  Corinthian  Gulf  for  a  distance  of  about 
fifteen  miles,  and  extended  inland  about  twelve  or  thirteen 
miles.    It  contained  but  one  city,  viz.,  Sicyon. 

Achaea  came  next  to  Sicyonia,  and  extended  along  the  coast 
a  distance  of  about  sixty-five  miles.  Its  average  width  was 
about  ten  miles ;  and  its  area  may  be  reckoned  at  650  square 
miles.  It  contained  twelve  cities,  of  which  Dyme,  Patrae  (now 
Patras),  and  Pellene  were  the  most  important. 


Elis  lay  on  the  west  coast  of  the  Peloponnese,  extending 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Larisus  to  that  of  the  Neda,  a  distance 
of  fifty-seven  miles,  and  reaching  inland  to  the  foot  of  Ery- 
manthus,  about  twenty-five  miles.  It  was  a  more  level  country 
than  was  common  in  Greece,  containing  broad  tracts  of  plain 
along  the  coast,  and  some  tolerably  wide  valleys  along  the 
courses  of  the  Peneus,  Alpheus,  and  Neda  rivers.  Its  chief 
cities  were  Elis,  on  the  Peneus,  the  port  Cyllene,  on  the  gulf 
of  the  same  name,  Olympia  and  Pisa,  on  the  Alpheus,  and 
Lepreum,  in  Southern  Elis  or  Triphylia. 

Arcadia  was  the  central  mountain  country — the  Switzerland 
— of  the  Peloponnese.  It  reached  from  the  mountain-chain  of 
Erymanthus,  Aroania,  and  Cyllene  in  the  north,  to  the  sources 
of  the  Alpheus  towards  the  south,  a  distance  of  about  sixty 
miles.  The  average  width  was  about  forty  miles.  The  area 
is  reckoned  at  1700  square  miles.  The  country  is  for  the  most 
part  a  mountainous  table-land,  the  rivers  of  which,  excepting 
towards  the  west  and  the  south-west,  are  absorbed  in  cata- 
bothra,  and  have  no  visible  outlet  to  the  sea.  High  plains  and 
small  lakes  are  numerous;  but  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the 
area  is  occupied  by  mountains  and  narrow  but  fertile  valleys. 
Important  cities  were  numerous.  Among  them  may  be  named 
Mantinea,  Tegea,  Orchomenus,  Pheneus,  Heraea,  Psophis, 
and,  in  the  later  times.  Megalopolis. 

Messenia  lay  south  of  Elis  and  Western  Arcadia,  occupying 
the  most  westerly  of  the  three  forelands  in  which  the  Pelo- 
ponnese terminates,  and  circling  round  the  gulf  between  this 
foreland  and  the  central  one  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  Chcerius. 
Its  length,  from  the  Neda  to  the  promontory  of  Acritas,  was 
forty-five  miles;  its  greatest  width  between  Laconia  and  the 
western  coast  was  thirty-seven  miles.  The  area  is  estimated  at 
1 160  square  miles.  Much  of  the  country  was  mountainous; 
but  along  the  course  of  the  main  river,  the  Pamisus,  were  some 
broad  plains,  and  the  entire  territory  was  fertile.  The  origi- 
nal capital  was  Stenyclerus ;  but  afterwards  Messene,  on  the 
south-western  flank  of  Mount  Ithome,  became  the  chief  town. 
Other  important  places  were  Eira  on  the  upper  Neda,  Pylus 
(now  Navarino),  and  Methone,  south  of  Pylus  (now  Modon). 

Laconia  embraced  the  two  other  Peloponnesian  forelands, 


together  with  a  considerable  tract  to  the  north  of  them.  Its 
greatest  length,  between  ArgoHs  and  the  promontory  of  Malea, 
was  nearly  eighty  miles,  while  its  greatest  width  was  not  much 
short  of  fifty  miles.  The  area  approached  nearly  to  1900 
square  miles.  The  country  consisted  mainly  of  a  single  nar- 
rowish  valley — that  of  the  Eurotas — inclosed  between  two 
lofty  mountain-ranges — those  of  Parnon  and  Taygetus.  Hence 
the  expression,  "  Hollow  Lacedaemon,"  Sparta,  the  capital, 
lay  on  the  Eurotas,  at  the  distance  of  about  twenty  miles  from 
the  sea.  The  other  towns  were  unimportant;  the  chief  were 
Gythium  and  Thyrea  on  the  coast,  and  Sellasia  in  the  valley 
of  the  ^nus. 

Argolis  is  a  term  sometimes  applied  to  the  whole  tract  pro- 
jecting eastward  from  Achaea  and  Arcadia,  with  the  exception 
of  the  small  territory  of  Corinth:  but  the  word  will  be  here 
used  in  a  narrower  sense.  Argolis  Proper  was  bounded  by 
Sicyonia  and  Corinthia  on  the  north,  by  Epidaurus  on  the  east, 
by  Cynuria — a  portion  of  Laconia — on  the  south,  and  by  Ar- 
cadia on  the  west.  Its  greatest  extent  from  north  to  south  was 
about  thirty,  and  from  east  to  west  about  thirty-one  miles. 
Its  entire  area  did  not  exceed  700  square  miles.  Like  the  rest 
of  the  Peloponnese,  it  was  mountainous,  but  contained  a  large 
and  rich  plain  at  the  head  of  the  Argolic  Gulf.  Its  capital  was, 
in  early  times,  Mycenae;  afterwards  Argos.  Other  cities  of 
importance  were,  Phlius,  Cleonae,  and  Tiryns.  The  port  of 
Argos  was  Nauplia. 

Epidauria  lay  east  of  Argolis,  east  and  south  of  Corinthia. 
Its  length  from  north  to  south  was  about  twenty-three  miles, 
and  its  breadth  in  the  opposite  direction  about  eight  miles.  It 
contained  but  one  city  of  any  note,  viz.,  Epidaurus,  the  capital. 

Troezenia  adjoined  Epidauria  on  the  south-east.  It  com- 
prised the  north-eastern  half  of  the  Argolic  foreland,  together 
with  the  rocky  peninsula  of  Methana.  Its  greatest  length  was 
sixteen  miles,  and  its  greatest  width,  excluding  Methana,  nine 
miles.    It  contained  two  cities  of  note,  Troezen  and  Methana. 

Hermionis  adjoined  Epidauria  on  the  north  and  Trcezenia 
on  the  east.  It  formed  the  western  termination  of  the  Argolic 
foreland.  In  size  it  was  about  equal  to  Troezenia.  It  contained 
but  one  town  of  any  consequence,  viz.,  Hermione. 


Besides  the  littoral  islands  of  Greece,  which  have  been  al- 
ready enumerated,  there  were  several  others,  studding  the 
JEgezn  Sea,  which  deserve  notice ;  as  particularly  the  follow- 
ing:— (a)  In  the  Northern  ^gean,  Lemnos,  Imbrus,  Thasos, 
and  Samothrace.  (b)  In  the  Central  ^Egean,  besides  Andros, 
Ceos,  and  Cythnus,  which  may  be  called  littoral,  Tenos,  Syros, 
Gyarus,  Delos,  Myconus,  Naxos,  Paros,  Siphnus,  Melos, 
Thera,  Amorgus,  etc.  (c)  In  the  Southern  ^gean,  Crete. 
This  last-named  island  was  of  considerable  size.  It  extended 
from  west  to  east  a  distance  of  150  miles,  and  had  an  average 
width  of  about  fifteen  miles.  The  area  considerably  exceeded 
2000  square  miles.  The  chief  cities  were  Cydonia  and  Gnos- 
sus  on  the  north  coast,  and  Gortyna  in  the  interior.  The  whole 
island  was  mountainous  but  fertile. 

On  the  character  of  the  Greek  Islands,  see  the  work  of 

Ross,  L.,  "  Reisen  auf  den  Griechischen  Inseln."  Stuttgart,  1840-52; 
3  vols.,  8vo. 

On  the  general  geography  of  Greece,  the  following  may  be 
consulted  with  advantage: 

Kruse,  F.  G.  H.,  "  Hellas."  Leipsic,  1825-27;  3  vols.,  8vo.  A  gen- 
eral description  of  the  geography  of  Greece  from  the  best  sources  exist- 
ing at  the  time.    Still  of  value  to  the  student. 

Cramer,  J.  A.,  "  Geographical  and  Historical  Description  of  Ancient 
Greece."    Oxford,  1828;  3  vols.,  8vo. 

Leake,  Col.,  "Travels  in  Northern  Greece."  London,  1835;  4  vols., 

Leake,  Col.,  "  Travels  in  the  Morea."    London,  1830;   3  vols.,  8vo. 

Leake,  Col.,  "  Peloponnesiaca,"  supplemental  to  the  "  Travels  in  the 
Morea."    London,  1846;   8vo. 

Curtius,  E.,  "  Peloponnesus."    Gotha,  1851-52;  2  vols.,  8vo. 

Clark,  W.  G.,  "  Peloponnesus,  Notes  of  Study  and  Travel."  Lon- 
don, 1858;  8vo. 

Niebuhr,  B.  G.,  "  Lectures  on  the  Ethnography  and  Geography  of 
Ancient  Greece,"  edited  by  L.  Schmitz.  London,  1853;  2  vols.,  8vo; 
from  the  German  edition  of  Dr.  Isler. 



The  Ancient  Traditional  History,  from  the  Earliest  Times  to 
the  Dorian  Occupation  of  the  Peloponnese,  about  B.C.  1 100 
to  looo.* 

The  Greeks  of  the  historical  times  seem  to  have  had  no  tra- 
ditions of  a  migration  from  Asia.  Their  ancestors,  they  held, 
had  always  been  in  the  country,  though  they  had  not  always 
been  called  Hellenes.  Greece  had  been  inhabited  from  a  re- 
mote age  by  races  more  or  less  homogeneous,  and  more  or  less 
closely  allied  with  their  own — Pelasg^,  Leleges,  Curetes,  Cau- 
cones,  Aones,  Dolopes,  Dryopes,  and  the  like.  Of  these,  the 
Pelasgi  had  been  the  most  important.  The  Hellenes  proper 
had  originally  been  but  one  tribe  out  of  many  cognate  ones. 
They  had  dwelt  in  Achaea  Phthiotis,  or,  according  to  others, 
near  Dodona,  and  had  originally  been  insignificant  in  numbers 

*  Sources.  Native  only.  Homer. — The  two  poems  which  pass  under 
this  venerable  name,  whatever  their  actual  origin,  must  always  con- 
tinue to  be,  on  account  of  their  great  antiquity,  the  prime  authority 
for  the  early  condition  of  things  in  Greece.  Modern  criticism  agrees 
with  ancient  in  viewing  them  as  the  earliest  remains  of  Greek  literature 
that  have  come  down  to  us;  and,  if  their  actual  date  is  about  B.C.  850, 
as  now  generally  believed,  they  must  be  regarded  as  standing  apart  on 
a  vantage-ground  of  their  own;  for  we  have  nothing  else  continuous 
or  complete  in  Greek  literature  for  nearly  four  centuries.  Herodotus. 
— This  writer,  though  the  immediate  subject  of  his  history  is  the  great 
Persian  War,  yet  carries  us  back  in  the  episodical  portions  of  his  work 
to  very  remote  times,  and  is  entitled  to  consideration  as  a  careful  in- 
quirer into  the  antiquities  of  many  nations,  his  own  among  the  number. 
Thucydides. — The  sketch  with  which  the  history  of  Thucydides  opens, 
a  masterly  production,  gives  the  judgment  of  a  shrewd  and  well-read 
Athenian  of  the  fourth  century  B.C.  on  the  antiquities  of  Greece. 
Diodorus  Siculus  collected  from  previous  writers,  particularly  Ephorus 
and  Timseus.  the  early  traditional  history  of  Greece,  and  related  it  in 
his  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  books;  of  these  the  fourth  and  fifth 
remain,  while  the  other  two  are  lost,  excepting  a  few  fragments.  Much 
interesting  information  on  the  early  history  of  Greece  is  contained  in 
the  geographers,  as  particularly  in  Strabo,  Pausanias,  and  Scymnus 
Chius.  Of  Plutarch's  Lives  one  only,  that  of  Theseus,  belongs  to  the 
early  period. 


and  of  small  account.  In  process  of  time,  however,  they  ac- 
quired a  reputation  above  that  of  the  other  tribes;  recourse 
was  had  to  them  for  advice  and  aid  in  circumstances  of  diffi- 
culty; other  tribes  came  over  to  them,  adopted  their  name, 
their  form  of  speech,  and  the  general  character  of  their  civiliza- 
tion. The  growth  and  spread  of  the  Hellenes  was  thus  not  by 
conquest  but  by  influence;  they  did  not  overpower  or  expel 
the  Pelasgi,  Leleges,  etc.,  but  gradually  assimilated  them. 

The  original  Hellenic  tribes  seem  to  have  been  two  only, 
the  Dorians  and  the  Achaeans,  of  whom  the  latter  preponder- 
ated in  the  more  ancient  times.  Settled  in  Achaea  Phthiotis 
from  a  remote  antiquity,  they  were  also,  before  the  Dorian 
occupation,  the  leading  race  of  the  Peloponnese.  Here  they 
are  said  to  have  had  three  kingdoms — those  of  Argos,  My- 
cenae, and  Sparta — which  attained  to  a  considerable  degree 
of  prosperity  and  civilization.  The  Dorians  were  reported  to 
have  dwelt  originally  with  the  Achaeans  in  Phthiotis;  but 
their  earliest  ascertained  locality  was  the  tract  on  the  Upper 
Pindus  which  retained  the  name  of  Doris  down  to  Roman 
times.  In  this  "  small  and  sad  region  "  they  grew  to  greatness, 
increasing  in  numbers,  acquiring  martial  habits,  and  perhaps 
developing  a  peculiar  discipline. 

The  most  important  of  the  Pelasgic  tribes  was  that  of  the 
lonians,  which  occupied  in  the  earliest  times  the  whole  north 
coast  of  the  Peloponnese,  the  Megarid,  Attica,  and  Euboea. 
Another  (so-called)  tribe  (which  is,  however,  perhaps,  only 
a  convenient  designation  under  which  to  include  such  inhabi- 
tants of  the  country  as  were  not  Achaean,  Dorian,  or  Ionian) 
was  that  of  the  yEolians,  to  which  the  Thessalians,  Boeotians, 
Cohans,  Locrians,  Phocians,  Eleans,  Pylians,  etc.,  were  re- 
garded as  belonging.  These  races  having  been  gradually  Hel- 
lenized,  the  entire  four  tribes  came  to  be  regarded  as  Hellenic, 
and  a  mythic  genealogy  was  framed  to  express  at  once  the 
ethnic  unity  and  the  tribal  diversity  of  the  four  great  divisions 
of  the  Hellenic  people. 


I 1 1 

Dorus.  Xuthus.  j^olus. 

I ' -I 

Achseus.  Ion. 


According  to  the  traditions  of  the  Greeks,  some  important 
foreign  elements  were  received  into  the  nation  during  the 
period  of  which  we  are  treating.  Egyptians  settled  in  Attica 
andArgolis;  Phoenicians  in  Boeotia ;  and  Mysians,  or  Phryg- 
ians, at  Argos.  The  civilization  of  the  settlers  was  higher  than 
that  of  the  people  among  whom  they  settled,  and  some  con- 
siderable benefits  were  obtained  from  these  foreign  sources. 
Among  them  may  be  especially  mentioned  letters,  which  were 
derived  from  the  Phoenicians,  probably  anterior  to  B.C.  iioo. 
Although  writing,  for  some  centuries  after  its  introduction, 
was  not  much  used,  yet  its  occasional  employment,  especially 
for  public  purposes,  was  an  important  check  upon  the  erratic 
tendencies  of  oral  tradition.  Inscriptions  on  the  oflferings  in 
temples,  and  registers  of  the  succession  of  kings  and  sacerdotal 
persons,  were  among  the  earliest  of  the  Greek  historical  doc- 
uments ;  and  though  there  is  no  actual  proof  that  they  reached 
back  as  far  as  this  "  First  Period,"  yet  there  is  certainly  no 
proof  of  the  contrary,  and  many  of  the  best  critics  believe  in 
the  public  employment  of  writing  in  Greece  thus  early. 

But,  whatever  benefits  were  derived  by  the  Greeks  from 
the  foreigners  who  settled  among  them,  it  is  evident  that 
neither  the  purity  of  their  race,  nor  the  general  character  and 
course  of  their  civilization,  was  much  affected  by  extraneous 
influences.  The  incomers  were  comparatively  few  in  number, 
and  were  absorbed  into  the  Hellenic  nation  without  leaving 
any  thing  more  than  a  faint  trace  of  themselves  upon  the  lan- 
guage, customs,  or  religion  of  the  people  which  received  them 
into  its  bosom.  Greek  civilization  was  in  the  main  of  home 
growth.  Even  the  ideas  adopted  from  without  acquired  in  the 
process  of  reception  so  new  a  stamp  as  to  become  almost  orig- 
inal ;  and  the  Greek  people  must  be  held  to  have,  on  the  whole, 
elaborated  for  themselves  that  form  of  civilization,  and  those 
ideas  on  the  subjects  of  art,  politics,  morals,  and  religion, 
which  have  g^ven  them  their  peculiar  reputation. 

History  proper  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  commencing 
until  the  very  close  of  the  period  now  under  consideration, 
when  we  first  meet  with  names  which  have  some  claim  to  be 
regarded  as  those  of  actual  personages.  But  the  general  con- 
dition of  the  people  at  the  period,  and  some  of  the  movements 


of  the  races,  and  even  their  causes,  may  be  laid  down  with  an 
approach  to  certainty. 

The  Homeric  poems  represent  to  us  the  general  state  of  Greek 
society  in  the  earliest  times.  The  most  noticeable  features  are : 
— The  predominance  of  the  tribe  or  nation  over  the  city, 
which  exists  indeed,  but  has  nowhere  the  monopoly  of  political 
life.  The  universality  of  kingly  government,  which  is  heredi- 
tary and  based  upon  the  notion  of  "  divine  right."  The  exist- 
ence of  an  hereditary  nobility  of  a  rank  not  much  below  that 
of  the  king,  who  form  his  council  (ySouA,?;)  both  in  peace  and 
war,  but  exercise  no  effectual  control  over  his  actions.  The 
existence  of  an  assembly  (ar/opa)  which  is  convened  by  the 
king,  or,  in  his  absence,  by  one  of  the  chiefs,  to  receive  com- 
munications, and  witness  trials,  but  not  either  to  advise  or 
judge.  The  absence  of  polygamy  and  the  high  regard  in  which 
women  are  held.  Slavery  everywhere  established,  and  consid- 
ered to  be  right.  Perpetual  wars,  not  only  between  the  Greeks 
and  neighboring  barbarians,  but  between  the  various  Greek 
tribes  and  nations ;  preference  of  the  military  virtues  over  all 
others;  excessive  regard  for  stature  and  physical  strength. 
Wide  prevalence  of  nautical  habits  combined  with  a  disinclina- 
tion to  venture  into  unknown  seas ;  dependence  of  the  Greeks 
on  foreigners  for  necessary  imports.  Piracy  common;  cities 
built  at  a  distance  from  the  sea  from  fear  of  pirates.  Strong 
religious  feeling;  belief  in  polytheism,  in  fate,  in  the  divine 
Nemesis,  and  the  punishment  of  heinous  crimes  by  the  Furies. 
Respect  for  the  priestly  character,  for  heralds,  guests,  and  sup- 
pliants.   Peculiar  sanctity  of  temples  and  festival  seasons. 

The  religious  sentiment,  always  strong  in  the  Greek  mind, 
formed  in  the  early  times  one  of  the  most  important  of  the 
bonds  of  union  which  held  men,  and  even  tribes,  together. 
Community  of  belief  led  to  community  of  worship ;  and  tem- 
ples came  to  be  frequented  by  all  the  tribes  dwelling  around 
them,  who  were  thus  induced  to  contract  engagements  with 
one  another,  and  to  form  leagues  of  a  peculiar  character.  These 
leagues,  known  as  Amphictyonies,  were  not  political  alliances, 
much  less  confederations ;  they  were,  in  their  original  concep- 
tion, limited  altogether  to  religious  purposes ;  the  tribes,  or 
states,  contracting  them,  bound  themselves  to  protect  certain 


sacred  buildings,  rites,  and  persons,  but  undertook  no  other 
engagements  towards  one  another.  The  most  noted  of  these 
leagues  was  that  whereof  the  oracular  shrine  of  Delphi  was 
the  centre ;  which  acquired  its  peculiar  dignity  and  importance, 
not  so  much  from  the  wealth  and  influence  of  the  Delphic 
temple,  as  from  the  fact  that  among  its  twelve  constituent 
members  were  included  the  two  leading  races  of  Greece. 

Important  movements  of  some  of  the  principal  races  seem 
to  have  take  place  towards  the  close  of  the  early  period.  It 
may  be  suspected  that  these  had  their  origin  in  the  pressure 
upon  North-western  Greece  of  the  Illyrian  people,  the  parent 
(probably)  of  the  modem  Albanians.  The  tribes  to  the  west 
of  Pindus  were  always  regarded  as  less  Hellenic  than  those 
to  the  east ;  and  the  ground  of  distinction  seems  to  have  been 
the  greater  Illyrian  element  in  that  quarter.  The  Trojan  War, 
if  a  real  event,  may  have  resulted  from  the  Illyrian  pressure, 
being  an  endeavor  to  obtain  a  vent  for  a  population,  cramped 
for  room,  in  the  most  accessible  part  of  Asia.  To  the  same 
cause  may  be  assigned  the  great  movement  which,  commenc- 
ing in  Epirus  (about  B.C.  1200),  produced  a  general  shift  of 
the  populations  of  Northern  and  Central  Hellas.  Quitting 
Thesprotia  in  Epirus,  the  Thessalians  crossed  the  Pindus 
mountain-chain,  and  descending  on  the  fertile  valley  of  the 
Peneus,  drove  out  the  Boeotians,  and  occupied  it.  The  Boeo- 
tians proceeded  southward  over  Othrys  and  GEta  into  the  plain 
of  the  Cephissus,  and  driving  out  the  Cadmeians  and  Minyans, 
acquired  the  territory  to  which  they  thenceforth  gave  name. 
The  Cadmeians  and  Minyae  dispersed,  and  are  found  in  Attica, 
in  Laccdaemon,  and  elsewhere.  The  Dorians  at  the  same  time 
moved  from  their  old  home  and  occupied  Dryopis,  which 
thenceforward  was  known  as  Doris,  expelling  the  Dryopians, 
who  fled  by  sea  and  found  a  refuge  in  Euboea,  in  Cythnus,  and 
in  the  Peloponnese. 

Not  many  years  later  a  further,  but  apparently  distinct, 
movement  took  place.  The  Dorians,  cramped  for  room  in 
their  narrow  valleys  between  CEta  and  Parnassus,  having  allied 
themselves  with  their  neighbors,  the  i^tolians,  crossed  the 
Corinthian  Gulf  at  its  narrowest  point,  between  Rhium  and 
Antirrhium,  and  effected  a  lodgment  in  the  Peloponnese.  Elis, 
Vol,  I.— 8 


Messenia,  Laconia,  and  Argolis  were  successively  invaded,  and 
at  least  partially  conquered.  Elis  being  assigned  to  the  ^to- 
lians,  Dorian  kingdoms  were  established  in  the  three  other 
countries.  The  previous  Achaean  inhabitants  in  part  submit- 
ted, in  part  fled  northward,  and  occupied  the  north  coast  of  the 
Peloponnese,  dispossessing  the  lonians,  who  found  a  tempo- 
rary refuge  in  Attica. 

A  further  result  followed  from  the  migrations  and  conquests 
here  spoken  of.  The  population  of  Greece,  finding  the  conti- 
nent too  narrow  for  it,  was  forced  to  flow  out  into  the  islands 
of  the  Mediterranean  and  the  shores  to  which  those  islands 
conducted.  The  Boeotian  occupation  of  the  plain  of  the  Ce- 
phissus  led  to  the  first  Greek  settlements  in  Asia,  those  known 
as  ^olian,  in  Lesbos  and  on  the  adjacent  coast.  The  Achaean 
conquest  of  Ionia  caused  the  lonians,  after  a  brief  sojourn  in 
Attica,  to  pass  on  through  the  Cyclades,  to  Chios,  Samos,  and 
the  parts  of  Asia  directly  opposite.  Finally,  the  success  of  the 
Dorians  against  the  Achseans  caused  these  last  to  emigrate, 
in  part  to  Asia  under  Doric  leaders,  in  part  to  Italy. 

For  the  history  of  these  settlements,  see  ^^^he  following  para- 


From  the  Dorian  Conquest  of  the  Peloponnese  (about  B.C. 
iioo-iooo)  to  the  Commencement  of  the  Wars  with  Per*" 
sia,  B.C.  500. 

Part  I. 
History  of  the  principal  Hellenic  States  in  Greece  Proper. 

The  history  of  the  Hellenes  subsequently  to  the  Dorian  oc- 
cupation of  the  Peloponnese  resolves  itself  into  that  of  the 
several  states.  Still,  a  few  general  remarks  may  be  made 
before  proceeding  to  the  special  history  of  the  more  important 
cities  and  countries.  The  progress  of  civilization  was,  for  a 
time  and  to  a  certain  extent,  checked  by  the  migrations  and 
the  troubles  which  they  brought  in  their  train.  Stronger  and 
more  energetic  but  ruder  races  took  the  place  of  weaker  but 
more  polished  ones.  Physical  qualities  asserted  a  superiority 
over  g^ace,  refinement,  and  ingenuity.    What  the  rough  Do- 


rians  were  in  comparison  with  the  refined  Achaeans  of  the  Pelo- 
ponnese,  such  were  generally  the  conquering  as  compared  with 
the  conquered  peoples.  But  against  this  loss  must  be  set  the 
greater  political  vigor  of  the  new  era.  War  and  movement, 
bringing  out  the  personal  qualities  of  each  individual  man, 
favored  the  growth  of  self-respect  and  self-assertion.  Amid 
toils  and  dangers  which  were  shared  alike  by  all,  the  idea  of 
political  equality  took  its  rise.  A  novel  and  unsettled  state 
of  things  stimulated  political  inventiveness ;  and,  various  ex- 
pedients being  tried,  the  stock  of  political  ideas  increased  rap- 
idly. The  simple  hereditary  monarchy  of  the  heroic  times  was 
succeeded  everywhere,  except  in  Epirus,  by  some  more  com- 
plicated system  of  government — some  system  far  more  favor- 
able to  freedom  and  to  the  political  education  of  the  individual. 
Another  natural  consequence  of  the  new  condition  of  things 
was  the  change  by  which  the  City  acquired  its  special  dignity 
and  importance.  The  conquerors  naturally  settled  themselves 
in  some  stronghold,  and  kept  together  for  their  greater  secur- 
ity. Each  such  stronghold  became  a  separate  state,  holding  in 
subjection  a  certain  tract  of  circumjacent  country.  At  the 
same  time,  the  unconquered  countries  also,  seeing  the  strength 
that  resulted  from  unity,  were  induced  in  many  cases  to  abolish 
their  old  system  of  village  life  and  to  centralize  themselves  by 
establishing  capitals,  and  transferring  the  bulk  of  their  popu- 
lation to  them  {<TvvoiKia-€t<;).  This  was  the  case  with  Athens, 
Mantinea,  Tegea,  Dyme,  etc.  In  countries  occupied  by  a  sin- 
gle race,  but  broken  up  into  many  distinct  states,  each  central- 
ized in  a  single  city,  the  idea  of  political  confederation  grew 
up,  sometimes  (it  may  be)  suggested  by  a  pre-existing  am- 
phictyony,  but  occasionally,  it  would  seem,  without  any  such 
preparative.  The  federal  bond  was  in  most  cases  weak ;  and 
in  Boeotia  alone  was  the  union  such  as  to  constitute  perma- 
nently a  state  of  first-rate  importance. 

The  subdivision  of  Greece  into  a  vast  number  of  small 
states,  united  by  no  common  political  bond,  and  constantly  at 
war  with  one  another,  did  not  prevent  the  formation  and  main- 
tenance of  a  certain  general  Pan-Hellenic  feeling — a  conscious- 
ness of  unity,  a  friendliness,  and  a  readiness  to  make  common 
cause  against  a  foreign  enemy.    At  the  root  of  this  feeling  lay 


a  conviction  of  identity  of  race.  It  was  further  fostered  by 
the  possession  of  a  common  language  and  a  common  Hterature ; 
of  similar  habits  and  ideas ;  and  of  a  common  religion,  of  rites, 
temples,  and  festivals,  which  were  equally  open  to  all. 

The  first  state  which  attained  to  poHtical  importance  under 
the  new  condition  of  affairs  in  Greece  was  Argos.  From  Ar- 
gos,  according  to  the  tradition,  went  forth  the  Dorian  colonists, 
who  formed  settlements  in  Epidaurus,  Trcezen,  Phlius,  Sicyon, 
and  Corinth ;  while  from  some  of  these  places  a  further  exten- 
sion of  Doric  power  was  made,  as  from  Epidaurus,  which 
colonized  ^gina  and  Epidaurus  Limera,  and  from  Corinth, 
which  colonized  Megara.  Argos,  the  prolific  mother  of  so 
many  children,  stood  to  most  of  them  in  the  relation  of  pro- 
tectress, and  almost  of  mistress.  Her  dominion  reached,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  the  Isthmus;  on  the  other,  to  Cape  Malea 
and  the  island  of  Cythera.  For  three  or  four  centuries,  from 
the  Dorian  conquest  to  the  death  of  Pheidon  (about  B.C.  744), 
she  was  the  leading  power  of  the  Peloponnese,  a  fact  which 
she  never  forgot,  and  which  had  an  important  influence  on  her 
later  history. 

The  government  of  Argos  was  at  the  first  a  monarchy  of  the 
heroic  type,  the  supreme  power  being  hereditary  in  the  house 
of  the  Temenidae,  supposed  descendants  from  Temenus  the 
Heracleid,  the  eldest  of  the  sons  of  Aristomachus.  It  was  not 
long,  however,  before  aspirations  after  political  liberty  arose, 
and,  the  power  of  the  kings  being  greatly  curtailed,  a  govern- 
ment, monarchical  in  form,  but  republican  in  reality,  was  es- 
tablished. This  state  of  things  lasted  for  some  centuries ;  but 
about  B.C.  780  to  770,  on  the  accession  of  a  monarch  of  more 
than  ordinary  capacity,  a  certain  Pheidon,  a  reaction  set  in. 
Pheidon  not  only  recovered  all  the  lost  royal  privileges,  but, 
exceeding  them,  constituted  himself  the  first  known  Grecian 
"  tyrant."  A  great  man  in  every  way,  he  enabled  Argos  to 
exercise  something  like  a  practical  hegemony  over  the  whole 
Peloponnese.  Under  him,  probably,  were  sent  forth  the  col- 
onies which  carried  the  Argive  name  to  Crete,  Rhodes,  Cos, 
Cnidus,  and  Halicarnassus.  The  connection  thus  established 
with  Asia  led  him  to  introduce  into  Greece  coined  money — a 
Lydian  invention — and  a  system  of  weights  and  measures 


{^€i£<i)peia  tierpa)  believed  to  have  been  identical  with  the 

After  the  death  of  Pheidon,  Argos  declined  in  power;  the 
ties  uniting  the  confederacy  became  relaxed ;  the  government 
returned  to  its  previous  form ;  and  the  history  of  the  state  is 
almost  a  blank.  No  doubt  the  development  of  Spartan  power 
was  the  main  cause  of  this  decline;  but  it  may  be  attributed 
also,  in  part,  to  the  lack  of  eminent  men,  and  in  part  to  the 
injudicious  severity  with  which  Argos  treated  her  perioecic 
cities  and  her  confederates. 

Among  the  other  states  of  Greece,  the  two  whose  history  is 
most  ample  and  most  interesting,  even  during  this  early  period, 
are  undoubtedly  Sparta  and  Athens.  Every  "  History  of 
Greece  "  must  vainly  concern  itself  with  the  affairs  of  these 
two  states,  which  are  alone  capable  of  being  treated  with  any 
thing  like  completeness. 

History  of  Sparta. 

The  Dorians,  who  in  the  eleventh  century  eflfected  a  lodg- 
ment in  the  upper  valley  of  the  Eurotas,  occupied  at  first  a 
narrow  space  between  Taygetus  and  Pamon,  extending  north- 
ward no  farther  than  the  various  head-streams  of  the  Eurotas 
and  i^nus  rivers,  and  southward  only  to  a  little  beyond  Sparta. 
This  was  a  tract  about  twenty-five  miles  long  by  twenty  broad, 
the  area  of  which  might  be  400  square  miles.  In  the  lower 
valley,  from  a  little  below  Sparta  to  the  sea,  the  Achseans  still 
maintained  themselves,  having  their  capital  at  Amyclae,  on  the 
Eurotas,  within  two  miles  of  the  chief  city  of  their  enemies. 
Perpetual  war  went  on  between  the  two  powers ;  but  Sparta 
for  the  space  of  three  centuries  made  little  or  no  advance 
southward,  Amyclae  commanding  the  valley,  and  the  fortifi- 
cations of  Amyclae  defying  her  incessant  attacks.  Baffled  in 
this  quarter,  she  made  attempts  to  reduce  Arcadia,  which  failed, 
and  even  picRcd  quarrels  with  her  kindred  states,  Messenia 
and  Argos,  which  led  to  petty  wars  of  no  consequence. 

The  government  of  Sparta  during  this  period  underwent 
changes  akin  to  those  which  took  place  in  Argos.  The  mon- 
archs  were  at  first  absolute;  but  discontent  soon  manifested 
itself :  concessions  were  made  which  were  again  revoked ;  and 


the  whole  period  was  one  of  internal  struggle  and  disturbance. 
Nor  were  the  differences  between  the  kings  and  their  Dorian 
subjects  the  only  troubles  of  the  time.  The  submitted  Achae- 
ans,  of  whom  there  were  many,  were  displeased  at  their  treat- 
ment, murmured  and  even  sometimes  revolted,  and  being  re- 
duced by  force  of  arms  were  degraded  to  a  lower  position. 

The  double  monarchy,  which,  according  to  the  tradition,  had 
existed  from  the  time  of  the  conquest,  and  which  was  peculiar 
to  Sparta  among  all  the  Greek  states,  dated  really,  it  is  prob- 
able, from  the  time  of  struggle,  being  a  device  of  those  who 
sought  to  limit  and  curtail  the  royal  authority.  The  two  kings, 
like  the  two  consuls  at  Rome,  acted  as  checks  upon  each  other ; 
and  the  regal  power,  thus  divided  against  itself,  naturally  be- 
came weaker  and  weaker.  It  had  sunk,  evidently,  into  a 
shadow  of  its  former  self,  when  Lycurgus,  a  member  of  the 
royal  family,  but  not  in  the  direct  line  of  succession,  gave  to 
Sparta  that  constitution  which  raised  her  in  a  little  while  to 
a  proud  and  wonderful  eminence. 

The  adoption  of  the  Lycurgean  system  had  the  almost  imme- 
diate effect  of  raising  Sparta  to  the  first  place  in  Greece.  Amy- 
clae  fell  in  the  next  generation  to  Lycurgus ;  Pharis  and  Ge- 
ronthrae  submitted  soon  after.  A  generation  later  Helos  was 
taken,  and  the  whole  valley  of  the  Eurotas  occupied.  The 
Achaeans  submitted,  or  retired  to  Italy.  Wars  followed  with 
Arcadia  and  Argos,  the  latter  of  whom  lost  all  her  territory 
south  of  Cynuria.  Quarrels  began  with  Messenia,  which  led 
on  to  a  great  struggle. 

The  conquest  of  Messenia  by  Sparta,  which  made  her  at 
once  the  dominant  power  of  the  Peloponnese,  was  the  result 
of  two  great  wars,  each  lasting  about  twenty  years,  and  sepa- 
rated from  each  other  by  the  space  of  about  forty  years.  The 
wars  seem  to  have  been  purely  aggressive  on  the  part  of  Sparta, 
and  to  have  been  prompted,  in  part,  by  the  mere  lust  of  con- 
quest, in  part  by  dislike  of  the  liberal  policy  which  the  Dorians 
of  Messenia  had  adopted  towards  their  Achaean  subjects.  De- 
spite the  heroism  of  the  Messenians  and  the  assistance  lent 
them  by  Arcadia  and  Argos,  Sparta  gained  her  object,  in  con- 
sequence of  her  superior  military  organization  and  training, 
joined  to  the  advantage  of  her  central  position,  which  enabled 


her  to  strike  suddenly  with  her  full  force  any  one  of  her  three 

Closely  connected  with  the  Messenian  wars  were  certain 
changes  in  the  government  and  internal  condition  of  Sparta, 
the  general  tendency  of  which  was  towards  popularizing  the 
constitution.  The  constant  absence  of  the  two  kings  from 
Sparta  during  the  Messenian  struggle  increased  the  power 
of  the  Ephors,  who,  when  no  king  was  present,  assumed  that 
to  them  belonged  the  exercise  of  the  royal  functions.  The 
loss  of  citizens  in  the  wars  led  to  the  admission  of  new  blood 
into  the  state,  and  probably  caused  the  distinction  into  two 
classes  of  citizens  (6/jLOIoI  and  inrofieiove^i  ),  which  is  found 
to  exist  at  a  later  date.  The  Ephors,  elected  annually  by  the 
entire  body  of  the  citizens,  became  the  popular  element  in  the 
government ;  and  the  gradual  augmentation  of  their  power 
was,  in  a  certain  sense,  the  triumph  of  the  popular  cause.  At 
the  same  time  it  must  be  allowed  that  the  constitutional 
changes  made  did  not  content  the  aspirations  of  the  democratic 
party ;  and  that  the  colony  sent  out  to  Tarentum  at  once  indi- 
cated, and  relieved,  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  lower  grade  of 

The  conquest  of  Messenia  was  followed  by  some  wars  of  less 
importance,  which  tended,  however,  to  increase  the  power  of 
Sparta,  and  to  render  her  still  more  decidedly  the  leading  state 
of  Greece.  Pisatis  and  Triphylia  were  reduced  directly  after 
the  close  of  the  second  Messenian  war,  and  were  handed  over 
to  the  Eleans.  Arcadia  was  then  attacked,  but  made  a  vigorous 
resistance ;  and  the  sole  fruit  of  a  war  which  lasted  three  gen- 
erations was  the  submission  of  Tegea.  Argos  about  the  same 
time  lost  the  Thyreatis  (about  B.C.  554) ;  and  Spartan  influ- 
ence was  thus  extended  over,  perhaps,  two-thirds  of  the  Pelo- 

Hitherto  the  efforts  and  even  the  views  of  Sparta  had  been 
confined  to  the  narrow  peninsula  within  which  her  own  terri- 
tory lay ;  but  the  course  of  events  now  led  her  to  a  fuller  recog- 
nition of  her  own  greatness,  and,  as  a  natural  consequence,  to 
active  exertions  in  a  more  extended  sphere.  The  embassy  of 
Croesus  in  B.C.  555  was  the  first  public  acknowledgment  which 
she  received  of  her  importance ;  and  the  readiness  with  which 


she  embraced  the  offer  of  alliance,  and  prepared  an  expedition 
to  assist  the  Lydian  monarch,  indicates  the  satisfaction  which 
she  felt  in  the  new  prospects  which  were  opening  out  on  her. 
Thirty  years  later  (B.C.  525),  she  actually  sent  an  expedition, 
conjointly  with  Corinth,  to  the  coast  of  Asia,  which  failed, 
however,  to  effect  its  object,  the  deposition  of  Poly  crates  of 
Samos.  Soon  afterwards  (B.C.  510),  she  assumed  the  right  of 
interference  in  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Greek  states  beyond 
the  Peloponnese,  and  by  her  repeated  invasions  of  Attica,  and 
her  efforts  in  favor  of  the  Athenian  oligarchs,  sowed  the  seeds 
of  that  fear  and  dislike  with  which  she  was  for  nearly  a  century 
and  a  half  regarded  by  the  great  democratic  republic. 

History  of  Athens. 

The  traditional  history  of  Athens  commences  with  a  Kingly 
Period.  Monarchs  of  the  old  heroic  type  are  said  to  have  gov- 
erned the  country  from  a  time  considerably  anterior  to  the 
Trojan  War  down  to  the  death  of  Codrus,  B.C.  1300  to  1050. 
The  most  celebrated  of  these  kings  was  Theseus,  to  whom  is 
ascribed  the  awotKiafj.o'i,  whereby  Athens  became  the  capital 
of  a  centralized  monarchy,  instead  of  one  out  of  many  nearly 
equal  country  towns.  Another  king,  Menestheus,  was  said  to 
have  fought  at  Troy.  Codrus,  the  last  of  the  monarchs,  fell, 
according  to  the  tradition,  in  resisting  a  Dorian  invasion,  made 
from  the  recently  conquered  Peloponnese. 

The  Kingly  Period  was  followed  at  Athens  by  the  gradual 
development  of  an  aristocracy.  The  Eupatrids  had  acquired 
power  enough  under  the  kings  to  abolish  monarchy  at  the 
death  of  Codrus,  and  to  substitute  for  it  the  life-archonship, 
which,  though  confined  to  the  descendants  of  Codrus,  was  not 
a  royal  dignity,  but  a  mere  chief  magistracy.  The  Eupatrids 
elected  from  among  the  qualified  persons ;  and  the  archon  was, 
at  least  in  theory,  responsible.  Thirteen  such  archons  held 
office  before  any  further  change  was  made,  their  united  reigns 
covering  a  space  of  about  three  centuries,  B.C.  1050  to  752. 

On  the  death  of  Alcmason,  the  last  archon  for  life,  the  Eu- 
patrids made  a  further  change.  Archons  were  to  be  elected 
for  ten  years  only,  so  that  responsibility  could  be  enforced. 


ex-archons  being  liable  to  prosecution  and  punishment.  The 
descendants  of  Codrus  were  at  first  preserved  in  their  old 
dignity ;  but  the  fourth  decennial  archon,  Hipporaanes,  being 
deposed  for  his  cruelty,  the  right  of  the  Medontidae  was  de- 
clared to  be  forfeited  (B.C.  714),  and  the  office  was  thrown  open 
to  all  Eupatrids. 

Finally,  after  seven  decennial  archons  had  held  office,  the 
supreme  power  was  put  in  commission  (B.C.  684).  In  lieu 
of  a  single  chief  magistrate,  a  board  0/  nine  archons,  annually 
elected,  was  set  up,  the  original  kingly  functions  being  divided 
among  them.  The  aristocracy  was  now  fully  installed  in  power, 
office  being  confined  to  Eupatrids,  and  every  office  being  open 
to  all  such  persons,  Eupatrids  alone  having  the  suffrage,  and 
the  Agora  itself,  or  general  assembly  of  the  people,  having 
ceased  to  meet,  or  become  purely  formal  and  passive. 

The  full  triumph  of  the  oligarchy  did  not  very  long  precede 
the  first  stir  of  democratic  life.  Within  sixty  years  of  the  time 
of  complete  aristocratical  ascendency,  popular  discontent  be- 
gan to  manifest  itself,  and  a  demand  for  written  laws  arose, 
often  the  earliest  cry  of  an  oppressed  people.  Alarmed,  but  not 
intimidated,  the  nobles  endeavored  to  crush  the  rising  demo- 
cratic spirit  by  an  unsparing  severity ;  their  answer  to  the  de- 
mands made  on  them  was  the  legislation  of  Draco  (B.C. 
624),  which,  by  making  death  the  penalty  for  almost  all  crimes, 
placed  the  very  lives  of  the  citizens  at  the  disposal  of  the  ruling 
order.  The  increased  dissatisfaction  which  this  legislation 
caused  probably  encouraged  Cylon  to  make  his  rash  attempt 
(B.C.  612),  which  was  easily  put  down  by  the  oligarchs;  who, 
however,  contrived  to  lose  ground  by  their  victory,  incurring, 
as  they  did  in  the  course  of  it,  the  g^ilt  of  sacrilege,  and  at 
the  same  time  exasperating  the  people,  who  had  hoped  much 
from  Cylon 's  effort.  Under  these  circumstances,  after  a  vain 
attempt  had  been  made  to  quiet  matters  by  the  purification  of 
Epimenides  (B.C.  595),  and  after  the  political  discontent  had 
taken  the  new  and  dangerous  shape  involved  in  the  formation 
of  local  factions  (Pediaei,  Parali,  and  Diacrii),  Solon,  an  Eupat- 
rid,  but  of  so  poor  a  family  that  he  had  himself  been  engaged 
in  trade,  was  by  common  consent  intrusted  with  the  task  of 
framing  a  new  constitution,  B.C.  594. 


The  legislation  of  Solon,  wise  as  it  seems  to  moderns,  was 
far  from  satisfying  his  contemporaries.  Like  most  moderate 
politicians,  he  was  accused  by  one  party  of  having  gone  too 
far,  by  another  of  not  having  done  enough.  His  personal  in- 
fluence sufficed  for  a  time  to  restrain  the  discontented;  but 
when  this  influence  was  withdrawn  (about  B.C.  570),  violent 
contentions  broke  out.  The  local  factions  revived.  A  strug- 
gle commenced  between  a  reactionary  party  under  Lycurgus, 
a  conservative  party  under  the  Alcmaeonid  Megacles,  and  a 
party  of  progress  under  Pisistratus,  which  terminated  in  the 
triumph  of  the  last-named  leader,  who  artfully  turned  his  suc- 
cess to  his  own  personal  advantage  by  assuming  the  position 
of  Dictator,  or  (as  the  Greeks  called  it)  Tyrant,  B.C.  560. 

The  expulsion  of  the  tyrant  was  followed  by  fresh  troubles. 
A  contest  for  power  arose  between  Isagoras,  the  friend  of  Cle- 
omenes,  and  Clisthenes,  the  head  of  the  Alcmaeonid  family, 
which  terminated  in  favor  of  the  latter,  despite  the  armed  inter- 
ference of  Sparta.  Clisthenes,  however,  had  to  purchase  his 
victory  by  an  alliance  with  the  democratical  party;  and  the 
natural  result  of  his  success  was  a  further  change  in  the  con- 
stitution, which  was  modified  in  a  democratic  sense. 

The  establishment  of  democracy  gave  an  impulse  to  the 
spirit  of  patriotism,  which  resulted  almost  immediately  in  some 
splendid  military  successes.  Athens  had  for  some  time  been 
growing  in  warlike  power.  Under  Solon  she  had  taken  Sala- 
mis  from  Megara,  and  played  an  important  part  in  the  first 
Sacred  War  (B.C.  600  to  591).  About  B.C.  518,  or  a  little 
earlier,  she  had  accepted  the  protectorate  of  the  Plataeans. 
Now  (B.C.  507)  being  attacked  at  one  and  the  same  time  by 
Sparta,  by  Boeotia,  and  by  the  Chalcideans  of  Euboea,  she  com- 
pletely triumphed  over  the  coalition.  The  Spartan  kings  quar- 
relled, and  the  force  under  their  command  withdrew  without 
risking  a  battle.  The  Boeotians  and  Chalcideans  were  signally 
defeated.  Chalcis  itself  was  conquered  and  occupied.  A  naval 
struggle  with  ^gina,  the  ally  of  Bceotia,  followed,  during  the 
continuance  of  which  the  first  hostilities  took  place  between 
Athens  and  Persia.  Proud  of  her  recent  victories,  and  con- 
fident in  her  strength,  Athens  complied  with  the  request  of 
Aristagoras,  and  sent  twenty  ships  to  support  the  revolt  which 



threatened  to  deprive  the  Great  King  of  the  whole  sea-board 
of  Asia  Minor.  Though  the  burning  of  Sardis  was  followed 
by  the  defeat  of  Ephesus,  yet  the  Persian  monarch  deemed  his 
honor  involved  in  the  further  chastisement  on  her  own  soil  of 
the  audacious  power  which  had  presumed  to  invade  his  do- 
minions. An  attempt  to  conquer  Greece  would,  no  doubt,  have 
been  made  even  without  provocation ;  but  the  part  taken  by 
Athens  in  the  Ionic  revolt  precipitated  the  struggle.  It  was 
well  that  the  contest  came  when  it  did.  Had  it  been  delayed 
until  Athens  had  g^own  into  a  rival  to  Sparta,  the  result  might 
have  been  different.  Greece  might  then  have  succumbed ;  and 
European  freedom  and  civilization,  trampled  under  foot  by  the 
hordes  of  Asia,  might  have  been  unable  to  recover  itself. 

Part  II. 
History  of  the  other  Grecian  States. 

The  history  of  the  smaller  states  will  be  most  conveniently 
given  under  the  five  heads  of  the  Peloponnesian  States;  the 
States  of  Central  Greece;  those  of  Northern  Greece;  those 
situated  in  the  islands ;  and  those  which  either  were,  or  were 
regarded  as,  coloniea 

Smaller  Peloponnesian  States. 

Achsea. — ^Th'e  traditions  said  that  when  the  Dorians  con- 
quered Sparta,  the  Spartan  king  Tisamenus,  son  of  Orestes,  led 
the  Achaeans  northward,  and,  expelling  the  lonians  from  the 
tract  which  lay  along  the  Corinthian  Gulf,  set  up  an  Achaean 
kingdom  in  those  parts,  which  lasted  for  several  generations. 
Og^gus,  however,  the  latest  of  these  monarchs,  having  left  be- 
hind him  sons  of  a  tyrannical  temper,  the  Achaeans  destroyed 
the  monarchy,  and  set  up  a  federal  republic.  Twelve  cities 
composed  the  league,  which  were  originally  Pellene,  ^geira 
(or  Hyparesia),  ^^gae,  Bura.  Helice,  ^Egium,  Rhypes,  Patrae, 
Pharae,  Olenus,  Dyme,  and  Tritaea,  all  situated  on  or  near  the 
coast  except  the  last  two,  which  were  in  the  interior.  The 
common  place  of  meeting  for  the  league  was  Helice,  where  an 


annual  festival  was  held,  and  common  sacrifices  were  offered 
to  Heliconian  Neptune.  The  constitution  of  the  several  cities 
is  said  to  have  been  democratic.  The  league  was,  no  doubt, 
political  as  well  as  religious ;  but  no  details  are  known  of  it. 
According  to  Polybius  it  was  admired  for  its  fairness  and  equal- 
ity, and  was  taken  as  a  model  by  the  cities  of  Magna  Graecia  in 
the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century.  We  may  gather  from  Thucyd- 
ides  that  it  was  of  the  loose  type  so  common  in  Greece.  The 
Achaeans  seem  to  have  manifested  in  the  early  times  a  dispo- 
sition to  stay  at  home  and  to  keep  aloof  from  the  quarrels  of 
their  neighbors.  Hence  the  history  of  the  country  scarcely 
begins  till  the  time  of  Antigonus,  from  which  period  the  league 
formed  a  nucleus  round  which  independent  Greece  rallied  itself. 
Arcadia. — The  Arcadians  were  regarded  as  aboriginal  in- 
habitants of  their  country.  They  called  themselves  'jrpoaektjvoL. 
The  Dorian  conquests  in  the  Peloponnese  left  them  untouched ; 
and  they  retained  to  a  late  date,  in  their  remote  valleys  and  cold 
high  mountain  pastures,  very  primitive  habits.  The  tradition 
makes  the  entire  country  form,  in  the  old  times,  a  single  mon- 
archy, which  continues  till  B.C.  668;  but  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  there  had  really  ever  existed  in  Arcadia  any  thing 
more  than  an  Amphictyonic  union  prior  to  Epaminondas. 
The  whole  country  is  physically  broken  up  into  separate  val- 
leys and  basins,  whose  inhabitants  would  naturally  form  sep- 
arate and  distinct  communities,  while  retaining  a  certain  sense 
of  ethnic  relationship.  The  most  important  of  these  communi- 
ties were  Mantinea  and  Tegea,  neighboring  towns,  between 
which  there  were  frequent  wars.  Next  to  these  may  be  placed 
Orchomenus,  Pheneus,  and  Stymphalus  towards  the  north- 
east ;  Cleitor  and  Heraea  towards  the  west ;  and  Phigaleia,  on 
the  north-western  border,  near  Messenia.  The  Arcadians, 
however,  loved  villages  rather  than  towns ;  and  the  numerous 
population  was  chiefly  located  in  small  hamlets  scattered  about 
the  mountains.  Arcadia  was  subject  to  constant  aggressions 
at  the  hands  of  Sparta,  which  she  sought  to  revenge  upon  fit- 
ting occasions.  These  aggressions  began  in  the  times  previous 
to  Lycurgus  (see  p.  117),  and  continued  afterwards  almost  con- 
stantly. In  retaliation,  the  Arcadians  assisted  Messenia 
throughout  both  the  Messenian  wars.    Tegea,  as  the  nearest 


State  to  Sparta,  suffered  most  at  her  hands ;  and  after  a  long 
struggle,  it  would  seem  that  Arcadia  generally  (about  B.C. 
560)  acknowledged  the  Lacedaemonian  hegemony,  placing  her 
full  military  strength  at  the  disposal  of  Sparta  in  her  wars,  but 
retaining  her  internal  independence.  Mantinea  even,  upon  oc- 
casions, thwarted  the  policy  of  Sparta. 

Corinth. — Corinth,  a  rich  and  famous  city  even  in  the  times 
anterior  to  the  Doric  conquests,  was  occupied  by  Dorian  set- 
tlers from  Argos  soon  after  the  reduction  of  that  state.  A  mon- 
archy was  established  under  kings  who  claimed  descent  from 
Hercules,  twelve  such  rulers  holding  the  throne  during  the 
space  of  327  years.  At  the  end  of  this  time  monarchy  was  ex- 
changed for  oligarchy,  power  remaining  (as  at  Athens)  in  the 
hands  of  a  branch  of  the  royal  family,  the  Bacchiadae,  who  in- 
termarried only  among  themselves,  and  elected  each  year  from 
their  own  body  a  Prytanis,  or  chief  magistrate.  This  state  of 
things  continued  for  ninety  years,  when  a  revolution  was  ef- 
fected by  Cypselus,  who,  having  ingratiated  himself  with  the 
people,  rose  up  against  the  oligarchs,  expelled  them,  and  made 
himself  tyrant.  Cypselus  reigned  from  B.C.  657  to  627,  when 
he  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Periander,  who  reigned  from  B.C. 
627  to  587.  A  third  monarch  of  the  dynasty,  Psammetichus, 
the  nephew  or  grandson  of  Periander,  mounted  the  throne,  but 
was  expelled,  after  a  reig^  of  three  years,  by  the  people,  per- 
haps assisted  by  Sparta,  B.C.  584.  The  time  of  the  Cypselids 
was  one  of  great  material  wealth  and  prosperity;  literature 
and  the  arts  flourished ;  commerce  was  encouraged ;  colonies 
were  sent  out ;  and  the  hegemony  of  the  mother  country  over 
her  colonies  successfully  asserted.  (The  chief  Corinthian 
settlements  were  Corcyra,  Ambracia,  Leucas,  Anactorium, 
Epidamnus,  ApoUonia,  Syracuse,  and  Potidaea.  Of  these,  Am- 
bracia, Leucas,  Anactorium,  Epidamnus,  Apollonia,  and  Poti- 
dasa  were  content  to  be  subject.  Corcyra  generally  asserted 
independence,  but  was  forced  to  submit  to  the  Cypselids.  Syr- 
acuse must  have  been  from  the  first  practically  independent.) 
After  the  downfall  of  the  tyrants,  who  are  said  to  have  ruled 
harshly,  a  republic  was  established  on  a  tolerably  wide  basis. 
Power  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  wealthy  class ;  and  even 
commerce  and  trade  were  no  bars  to  the  holding  of  office. 


Corinth  became  one  of  the  richest  of  the  Greek  states ;  but,  as 
she  increased  in  wealth,  she  sank  in  political  importance.  Re- 
gard for  her  material  interests  induced  her  to  accept  the  pro- 
tection of  Sparta,  and  from  about  B.C.  550  she  became  merely 
the  second  power  in  the  Spartan  league,  a  position  which  she 
occupied  with  slight  interruptions  till  B.C.  394. 

Elis. — The  settlement  of  the  ^tolo-Dorians  under  Oxylus 
(see  p.  113)  had  been  made  in  the  more  northern  portion  of  the 
country,  between  the  Larisus  and  the  Ladon  or  Selleis.  The 
region  south  of  this  as  far  as  the  Neda  remained  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  old  inhabitants,  and  was  divided  into  two  districts, 
Pisatis,  or  the  tract  between  the  Ladon  and  the  Alpheus,  of 
which  Pisa  was  the  capital,  and  Triphylia,  the  tract  between  the 
Alpheus  and  the  Neda,  of  which  the  chief  city  was  Lepreum. 
The  Eleans,  however,  claimed  a  hegemony  over  the  whole 
country ;  and  this  claim  gave  rise  to  frequent  wars,  in  which 
the  Eleans  had  the  advantage,  though  they  never  succeeded 
in  completely  absorbing  even  Pisatis.  The  chief  importance 
of  Elis  was  derived  from  the  celebration  within  her  territory 
of  the  Olympic  Games,  a  festival  originally  Pisan,  of  which  the 
direction  was  assumed  by  the  Eleans,  but  constantly  disputed 
by  the  Pisatans.  Sparta  in  the  early  times  supported  the  Elean 
claims ;  but  in  and  after  the  Peloponnesian  struggle  it  became 
her  policy  to  uphold  the  independence  of  Lepreum.  The  Eleans 
dwelt  chiefly  in  villages  till  after  the  close  of  the  great  Persian 
War,  when  the  city  of  Elis  was  first  founded,  B.C.  477. 

Sicyon. — Sicyon  was  believed  to  have  been  one  of  the  oldest 
cities  in  Greece,  and  to  have  had  kings  of  its  own  at  a  very 
remote  period.  Homer,  however,  represents  it  as  forming,  at 
the  time  of  the  Trojan  War,  part  of  the  dominions  of  Agamem- 
non. Nothing  can  be  said  to  be  really  known  of  Sicyon  until 
the  time  of  the  Doric  immigration  into  the  Peloponnese,  when 
it  was  occupied  by  a  body  of  Dorians  from  Argos,  at  whose 
head  was  Phalces,  son  of  Temenus.  A  Heracleid  monarchy 
was  established  in  the  line  of  this  prince's  descendants,  which 
was  superseded  after  some  centuries  by  an  oligarchy.  Power 
during  this  period  was  wholly  confined  to  the  Dorians ;  the 
native  non-Doric  element  in  the  population,  which  was  numer- 
ous, being  destitute  of  political  privilege.     But  towards  the 


beginning  of  the  seventh  century  B.C.  a  change  occurred. 
Orthagoras,  a  non-Dorian,  said  to  have  been  by  profession  a 
cook,  subverted  the  oHgarchy,  estabHshed  himself  upon  the 
throne,  and  quietly  transferred  the  predominance  in  the  state 
from  the  Dorian  to  the  non-Dorian  population.  He  left  his 
throne  to  his  posterity,  who  ruled  for  above  a  hundred  years. 
Clisthenes,  the  last  monarch  of  the  line,  adding  insult  to  injury, 
changed  the  names  of  the  Dorian  tribes  in  Sicyon  from  Hyllaei, 
Dymanes,  and  Pamphyli,  to  Hyatae,  Oneatae,  and  Chaereatae,  or 
"  Pig-folk,"  "  Ass-folk,"  and  "  Swine-folk."  He  reigned  from 
about  B.C.  595  to  560.  About  sixty  years  after  his  death,  the 
Dorians  in  Sicyon  seem  to  have  recovered  their  preponderance, 
and  the  state  became  one  of  the  most  submissive  members  of 
the  Lacedaemonian  confederacy. 

Smaller  States  of  Central  Greece. 

Megaris. — Megaris  was  occupied  by  Dorians  from  Corinth, 
shortly  after  the  great  immigration  into  the  Peloponnese.  At 
first  the  colony  seems  to  have  been  subject  to  the  mother  coun- 
try ;  but  this  subjection  was  soon  thrown  off,  and  we  find  Cor- 
inth fomenting  quarrels  among  the  various  Megarian  towns — 
Megara,  Heraea,  Peiraea,  Tripodiscus,  and  Cynosura — in  the 
hope  of  recovering  her  influence.  About  B.C.  726  the  Corin- 
thians seem  to  have  made  an  attempt  at  conquest,  which  was 
repulsed  by  Orsippus,  the  Olympian  runner.  Nearly  at  the 
same  time  commenced  the  series  of  Megarian  colonies,  which 
form  so  remarkable  a  feature  in  the  history  of  this  state.  The 
first  of  these  was  Megara  Hyblaea,  near  Syracuse,  founded 
(according  to  Thucydides)  in  B.C.  728,  from  which  was  sent 
out  a  sub-colony  to  Selinus ;  then  followed  Chalcedon,  in  B.C. 
674;  Byzantium,  in  B.C.  657;  Selymbria,  in  B.C.  662;  Herac- 
lea  Pontica,  in  B.C.  559;  and  Chersonesus,  near  the  modern 
Sebastopol,  not  long  afterwards.  The  naval  power  of  Megara 
must  have  been  considerable ;  and  it  is  not  surprising  to  find 
that  about  this  time  (B.C.  600)  she  disputed  with  Athens  the 
possession  of  Salamis.  Her  despot,  Theagenes,  was  an  enter- 
prising and  energetic  monarch.  Rising  to  power  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  popular  cause  (about  B.C.  630),  he  supported 


his  son-in-law,  Cylon,  in  his  attempt  to  occupy  a  similar 
position  at  Athens.  He  adorned  Megara  with  splendid  build- 
ings. He  probably  seized  Salamis,  and  gained  the  victories 
which  induced  the  Athenians  for  a  time  to  put  up  with  their 
loss.  On  his  deposition  by  the  oligarchs  (about  B.C.  600), 
the  war  was  renewed — Nisaea  was  taken  by  Pisistratus,  and 
Salamis  recovered  by  Cylon.  The  oligarchs  ruled  without 
bloodshed,  but  still  oppressively;  so  that  shortly  afterwards 
there  was  a  second  democratic  revolution.  Debts  were  now 
abolished,  and  even  the  return  of  the  interest  paid  on  them 
exacted  (TraXtvTo/cMi).  The  rich  were  forced  to  entertain  the 
poor  in  their  houses.  Temples  and  pilgrims  are  said  to  have 
been  plundered.  Vast  numbers  of  the  nobles  were  banished. 
At  length  the  exiles  were  so  numerous  that  they  formed  an 
army,  invaded  the  country,  and,  reinstating  themselves  by 
force,  established  a  somewhat  narrow  oligarchy,  which  ruled 
at  least  till  B.C.  460. 

Bceotia. — When  the  Boeotians,  expelled  from  Arne  by  the 
Thessalians,  settled  in  the  country  to  which  they  henceforth 
gave  name,  expelling  from  it  in  their  turn  the  Cadmaeans, 
Minyae,  etc.,  they  seem  to  have  divided  themselves  into  as 
many  states  as  there  were  cities.  What  the  form  of  govern- 
ment in  the  several  states  was  at  first  is  uncertain ;  we  can  only 
say  that  there  is  no  trace  of  monarchy,  and  that  as  soon  as  we 
obtain  a  glimpse  of  the  internal  affairs  of  any  of  them,  they  are 
oligarchical  republics.  The  number  of  the  states  seems  to  have 
been  originally  fourteen,  but  by  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian 
War  it  had  dwindled  to  ten,  partly  by  a  process  of  absorption, 
partly  by  separation.  Oropus,  Eleutherae,  and  Plataea  had  been 
lost  to  Athens;  Chgeroneia  had  been  incorporated  with  Or- 
chomenus  ;  the  remaining  ten  states  were  Thebes,  Orchomenus, 
Thespiae,  Lebadeia,  Coroneia,  Copse,  Haliartus,  Tanagra,  An- 
thedon,  and  perhaps  Chalia.  Between  these  states  there  had 
existed,  probably  from  the  first,  an  Amphictyony,  or  religious 
union,  which  had  the  temple  of  Itonian  Athene  near  Coroneia 
for  its  centre ;  and  there  took  place  once  a  year  the  celebration 
of  the  Pamboeotia,  or  general  festival  of  the  Boeotians.  By 
degrees,  out  of  this  religious  association  there  grew  up  a  fed- 
eral union;   the  states  recognized  themselves  as  constituting 


a  single  political  unit,  and  arranged  among  themselves  a  real 
federal  government.  The  supreme  authority  was  placed  in  the 
hands  of  a  council  (/SouXj;),  which  had  a  curious  fourfold  divi- 
sion ;  while  the  executive  functions  were  exercised  by  eleven 
Boeotarchs  (two  from  Thebes,  one  from  each  of  the  other  cities), 
who  were  at  once  the  generals  of  the  league  and  its  presiding 
magistrates.  Though  the  place  of  meeting-  for  the  council 
seems  to  have  been  Coroneia,  yet  Thebes  by  her  superior  size 
and  power  obtained  an  undue  predominance  in  the  confedera- 
tion, and  used  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  excite  the  jealousy  and 
disaffection  of  almost  all  the  other  cities.  As  early  as  B.C.  510, 
Plataea  was  driven  to  detach  herself  from  the  confederation, 
and  to  put  herself  under  the  protection  of  Athens.  In  later 
times  Thespiae  made  more  than  one  attempt  to  follow  the  Pla- 
taean  example,  B.C.  423  and  414.  The  readiness  of  Athens  to 
receive  and  protect  revolted  members  of  the  league  was  among 
the  causes  of  that  hostility  which  Boeotia  was  always  ready 
to  display  towards  her ;  and  the  general  tendency  of  members 
of  the  league  to  revolt  was  among  the  chief  causes  of  that  po- 
litical weakness  which  Boeotia  exhibits,  as  compared  with 
Athens  and  Sparta. 

Phocis. — There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Phocis  was,  like  Boeo- 
tia, a  confederation ;  but  from  the  comparative  insignificance 
of  the  state  no  details  of  the  constitution  have  come  down  to 
us.  The  place  of  meeting  for  the  deputies  seems  to  have  been 
an  isolated  building  (to  ^odklkov)  on  the  route  from  Daulis  to 
Delphi.  No  Phocian  city  had  any  such  preponderance  as  be- 
longed to  Thebes  among  the  cities  of  Boeotia,  and  hence  the 
league  appears  to  have  been  free  from  those  perpetual  jeal- 
ousies and  heartburnings  which  we  remark  in  the  neighboring 
countrv'.  Still  certain  secessions  from  the  confederacy  appear 
to  have  taken  place,  as  that  of  Delphi,  and,  again,  that  of 
Cirrha,  which  was  a  separate  state  about  B.C.  600.  A  constant 
enmity  existed  between  Phocis  and  Thessaly,  consequent  upon 
the  attempts  made  by  the  Thessalians  from  time  to  time  to 
conquer  the  country.  These  attempts  were  successfully  re- 
sisted ;  but  they  were  so  far  injurious  to  the  independence  of 
Phocis,  that  they  produced  a  tendency  to  lean  on  Boeotia  and 
to  look  to  her  for  aid.  Still,  the  military  history  of  Phocis 


down  to  the  close  of  the  Persian  War  is  creditable  to  the  nation, 
which  frequently  repulsed  the  invasions  of  the  Thessalians,  and 
which  offered  a  brave  resistance  to  the  enormous  host  of 

Locris. — There  were  three  countries  of  this  name;  and 
though  a  certain  ethnic  connection  between  them  may  be  as- 
sumed from  the  common  appellation,  yet  politically  the  three 
countries  appear  to  have  been  entirely  separate  and  distinct. 
The  Locri  Ozolae  (the  "  stinking  Locri ")  possessed  the  largest 
and  most  important  tract,  that  lying  between  Parnassus  and 
the  Corinthian  Gulf,  bounded  on  the  west  by  .(Etolia.  They 
probably  formed  a  confederacy  under  the  presidency  of  Am- 
phissa.  The  Locri  Epicnemidii,  or  Locrians  of  Mount  Cnemis, 
and  the  Locri  Opuntii,  or  those  of  Opus,  were  separated  from 
their  western  brethren  by  the  whole  breadth  of  the  territory 
of  Phocis.  They  were  also  separated  from  each  other,  but  only 
a  narrow  strip  or  tongue  of  Phocian  territory,  which  ran  down 
to  the  Euripus  at  the  town  of  Daphnus.  Of  the  internal  or- 
ganization of  the  Epicnemidii  we  know  nothing.  The  Opun- 
tians  were  probably  a  confederacy  under  the  hegemony  of 

yEtolia. — ^^tolia,  the  country  of  Diomed,  though  famous  in 
the  early  times,  fell  back  during  the  migratory  period  almost 
into  a  savage  condition,  probably  through  the  influx  into  it  of 
an  Illyrian  population  which  became  only  partially  Hellenized. 
The  nation  was  divided  into  numerous  tribes,  among  which 
the  most  important  were  the  Apodoti,  the  Ophioneis,  the  Eu- 
rytanes,  and  the  Agraeans.  There  were  scarcely  any  cities, 
village  life  being  preferred-  universally.  No  traces  appear  of 
a  confederation  of  the  tribes  until  the  time  of  Alexander,  though 
in  times  of  danger  they  could  unite  for  purposes  of  defense 
against  the  common  enemy.  The  Agraeans,  so  late  as  the  Pelo- 
ponnesian  War,  were  under  the  government  of  a  king:  the 
political  condition  of  the  other  tribes  is  unknown.  It  was  not 
till  the  wars  which  arose  among  Alexander's  successors  that 
the  i^tolians  formed  a  real  political  union,  and  became  an  im- 
portant power  in  Greece. 

Acarnania. — The  Acarnanians  were  among  the  more  back- 
ward of  the  Greek  nations  in  the  historical  times,  but  they 


were  considerably  more  advanced  than  the  iEtolians.  They 
possessed  a  number  of  cities,  among  which  the  most  important 
were  Stratus,  Amphilochian  Argos,  and  CEniadae.  From  a  very 
remote  date  they  had  formed  themselves  into  a  federation, 
which  not  only  held  the  usual  assemblies  for  federal  purposes 
(probably  at  Stratus),  but  had  also  a  common  Court  of  Justice 
{SiKotrrqpiop)  for  the  decision  of  causes,  at  Olpae.  There  was 
great  jealousy  between  the  native  Acarnanians  and  the  colonies 
planted  by  the  Corinthians  on  or  near  their  coasts,  Ambracia, 
Leucas,  Anactorium,  Sollium,  and  Astacus,  which  in  the  early 
times  certainly  did  not  belong  to  the  league.  The  league  itself 
was  of  the  lax  character  usual  in  Greece,  and  allowed  of  the 
several  cities  forming  their  own  alliances,  and  even  taking  op- 
posite sides  in  a  war. 

States  of  Nortfum  Greece. 

Thessaly. — The  Thesprotian  conquerors  of  Thessaly  estab- 
lished a  condition  of  things  in  that  country  not  very  unlike  that 
which  the  Dorians  introduced  into  Laconia.  The  conquerors 
themselves  formed  a  noble  class  which  claimed  the  ownership 
of  most  of  the  territory  and  confined  to  itself  the  possession 
of  political  power.  The  conquered  were  reduced  to  two  very 
different  positions :  some  retained  their  personal  freedom  and 
the  right  to  their  lands,  but  were  made  subject  to  tribute; 
others  (the  Penestae)  were  reduced  to  the  condition  of  serfs, 
cultivating  the  lands  of  their  masters,  but  were  protected  in 
their  holdings,  could  not  be  sold  out  of  the  country,  and  both 
might  and  did  often  acquire  considerable  property.  The  chief 
diflferences  between  the  two  countries  were  (i)  that  in  Thessaly 
the  intermediate  class,  Achaeans,  Magnetes,  Perrhaebi,  etc., 
instead  of  being  scattered  over  the  country  and  intermixed 
with  the  nobles  and  serfs,  were  the  sole  occupants  of  certain  dis- 
tricts, retained  their  old  ethnic  name,  their  Amphictyonic  vote, 
and  their  governmental  organization ;  and  (2)  that  the  con- 
querors, instead  of  concentrating  themselves  in  one  city,  took 
possession  of  several,  establishing  in  each  a  distinct  and  sep- 
arate government.    The  governments  seem  to  have  been  orig- 



inally  monarchies,  which  merged  in  aristocracies,  wherein  one 
family  held  a  quasi-royal  position.  The  Aleuadae  at  Larissa 
and  Pharsalus  (?)  and  the  Scopadae  at  Cranon  correspond 
closely  to  the  Medontidae  at  Athens.  A  federal  tie  of  the 
weakest  character  united  the  several  states  of  Thessaly  in 
ordinary  times;  but  upon  occasions  this  extreme  laxity  was 
replaced  by  a  most  stringent  centralization.  A  Tagus  (Com- 
mander-in-Chief) of  all  Thessaly  was  appointed,  who  exer- 
cised powers  little  short  of  despotic  over  the  whole  country. 
Such,  apparently,  was  the  power  wielded  (about  B.C.  510)  by 
Cineas,  and  such  beyond  all  question  was  the  dominion  of  Ja- 
son of  Pherae,  and  his  three  brothers,  Polydorus,  Polyphron, 
and  Alexander,  B.C.  380  to  356.  In  the  remoter  times  Thess- 
aly was  aggressive  and  menaced  the  independence  of  the  states 
of  Central  Greece ;  but  from  the  dawn  of  exact  history  to  the 
time  of  Jason  her  general  policy  was  peaceful,  and,  except  as 
an  occasional  ally  of  Athens,  she  is  not  found  to  have  taken  any 
part  in  the  internal  quarrels  of  the  Greeks.  Her  aristocracies 
were  selfish,  luxurious,  and  devoid  of  patriotic  feeling:  con- 
tent with  their  position  at  home,  they  did  not  desire  the  glory 
of  foreign  conquest.  Thus  Thessaly  plays  a  part  in  the  history 
of  Greece  very  disproportioned  to  her  power  and  resources, 
not  rising  into  any  importance  till  very  shortly  before  the  Mace- 
donian period. 

Epirus. — Anterior  to  the  Persian  wars,  and  indeed  until  the 
time  of  Philip  of  Macedon,  Epirus  was  a  mere  geographical 
expression,  designating  no  ethnic  nor  political  unity.  The 
tract  so  called  was  parcelled  out  among  a  number  of  states, 
some  of  which  were  Greek,  others  barbarian.  Of  these  the 
chief  were :  (i)  the  semi-barbarous  kingdom  of  the  Molossians, 
ruled  over  a  family  which  claimed  descent  from  Achilles — a 
constitutional  monarchy,  where  the  king  and  people  alike 
swore  to  observe  the  laws;  (2)  the  kingdom  of  the  Orestae, 
barbarian;  (3)  the  kingdom  of  the  Parauaei,  likewise  barba- 
rian ;  (4)  the  republic  of  the  Chaonians,  barbarian,  administered 
by  two  annual  magistrates  chosen  out  of  a  singk  ruling  family ; 
(5)  the  republic  of  the  Thesprotians,  barbarian ;  and  (6)  the 
Ambracian  republic,  Greek,  a  colony  and  dependency  of  Cor- 
inth.   By  alliance  with  Philip  of  Macedon,  the  Molossian  kings 


were  enabled  to  bring  the  Epirotic  states  under  their  dominion, 
about  B.C.  350.  After  their  fall,  B.C.  239,  Epirus  became  a 
federal  republic. 

Greek  Insular  States. 

Corey ra — Corcyra,  the  most  western  of  the  Greek  islands, 
was  colonized  from  Corinth  about  B.C.  730. — From  the  fer- 
tility of  the  island,  and  the  advantages  of  its  situation,  the  set- 
tlement soon  became  important :  a  jealousy  sprang  up  between 
it  and  the  mother  country,  which  led  to  hostilities  as  early  as 
B.C.  670.  During  the  rule  of  the  Cypselid  princes  at  Corinth, 
Corcyra  was  forced  to  submit  to  them;  but  soon  after  their 
fall  independence  was  recovered.  From  this  time  till  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Peloponnesian  War,  the  commerce  and 
naval  power  of  Corcyra  went  on  increasing;  so  early  as  the 
time  of  the  invasion  of  Xerxes  (B.C.  480)  their  navy  was  the 
second  in  Greece,  and  just  before  the  Peloponnesian  War  it 
amounted  to  120  triremes.  The  government  was  a  republic, 
which  fluctuated  between  aristocracy  and  democracy;  party 
spirit  ran  high ;  and  both  sides  were  guilty  of  grievous  ex- 

Cephallenia. — This  island,  though  considerably  larger  than 
Corcyra,  and  exceedingly  fertile,  was  politically  insignificant. 
It  contained  four  cities,  each  of  which  was  a  distinct  state,  Pale, 
Cranii,  Same,  and  Pronus  or  Pronesus.  Probably  the  four 
were  united  in  a  sort  of  loose  confederation.  Pale  seems  to 
have  been  the  most  important  of  the  cities. 

Zacynthus,  which  was  originally  peopled  by  Achaeans  from 
the  Peloponnese,  formed  an  independent  state  till  the  time  of 
the  Athenian  confederacy.  It  had  a  single  city,  of  the  same 
name  with  the  island  itself,  and  is  chiefly  noted  in  the  early 
ages  as  furnishing  an  asylum  to  fugitives  from  Sparta. 

i^g^na  is  said  to  have  been  occupied  by  Dorian  colonists 
from  Epidaurus  shortly  after  the  invasion  of  the  Peloponnese. 
It  was  at  first  completely  dependent  on  the  mother  country; 
but,  growing  in  naval  power,  it  in  a  little  time  shook  off  the 
yoke,  and  became  one  of  the  most  flourishing  of  the  Grecian 
communities.    The  iEginetans  early  provoked  the  jealousy  of 



Samos,  and  a  war  followed  between  the  two  powers,  which  had 
no  very  important  consequences.  About  B.C.  500,  ^gina 
found  a  more  dangerous  rival  in  her  near  neighbor,  Athens, 
whose  growing  greatness  she  endeavored  to  check,  in  combi- 
nation with  Boeotia.  A  naval  war,  which  lasted  about  twenty 
years,  was  terminated,  B.C.  481,  by  the  common  danger  which 
threatened  all  Greece  from  the  armament  collected  by  Xerxes. 
JEgina  played  an  important  part  in  the  Persian  struggle ;  but 
still  it  was  one  of  the  effects  of  the  war  to  exalt  her  rival, 
Athens,  to  a  very  decided  pre-eminence  above  all  the  other 
naval  powers  of  Greece.  Not  content,  however,  with  mere  pre- 
ponderance. Athens,  on  breaking  with  Sparta,  B.C.  461,  pro- 
ceeded to  crush  ^gina,  which  resisted  for  four  years,  but  in 
B.C.  457  became  an  Athenian  dependency. 

Euboea. — This  large  island  contained  a  number  of  separate 
and  independent  states,  whereof  the  two  most  important  were 
Eretria  and  Chalcis.  These  cities  rose  to  eminence  at  an  early 
period,  and  contended  together  in  a  great  war,  wherein  most 
of  the  Greeks  of  Europe,  and  even  some  from  Asia,  took  part. 
The  balance  of  advantage  seems  to  have  rested  with  Chalcis, 
which  in  the  later  times  always  appears  as  the  chief  city  of  the 
island.  Chalcis  sent  out  numerous  and  important  colonies, 
as  Cuma  and  Rhegium  in  Italy ;  Naxos,  Leontini,  Catana,  and 
Zancle  in  Sicily ;  Olynthus,  Torone,  and  many  other  places  on 
the  coast  of  Thrace.  Its  constitution  was  oligarchical,  the  chief 
power  being  lodged  in  the  hands  of  the  "  Horse-keepers  " 
(iTTTTo/SoTat),  or  Knights.  About  B.C.  500,  Chalcis  was  in- 
duced to  join  the  Spartans  and  Boeotians  in  an  attempt  to  crush 
Athens,  which  failed,  and  cost  Chalcis  its  independence.  The 
lands  of  the  Hippobotse  were  confiscated,  and  an  Athenian  col- 
ony established  in  the  place.  Chalcis,  together  with  the  rest 
of  Eubcea,  revolted  from  Athens  in  B.C.  445,  but  was  again 
reduced  by  Pericles.  In  the  Peloponnesian  War,  B.C.  411, 
better  success  attended  a  second  effort. 

The  Cyclades. — These  islands  are  said  to  have  been  origi- 
nally peopled  by  Carians  from  Asia  Minor ;  but  about  the  time 
of  the  great  migrations  (B.C.  1200  to  1000)  they  were  occupied 
by  the  Greeks,  the  more  northern  by  Ionian,  the  more  southern 
by  Dorian  adventurers.    After  a  while  an  Ionian  Amphictyony 


grew  up  in  the  northern  group,  having  the  islet  of  Delos  for 
its  centre,  and  the  Temple  of  Apollo  there  for  its  place  of  meet- 
ing ;  whence  the  position  occupied  by  Delos  on  the  formation 
of  the  Athenian  confederacy.  The  largest,  and,  politically 
speaking,  most  important  of  the  Cyclades  were  Andros  and 
Naxos ;  the  former  of  which  founded  the  colonies  of  Acanthus, 
Sane,  Argilus,  and  Stageirus  in  Thrace,  while  the  latter  re- 
pulsed a  Persian  attack  in  B.C.  501,  and  contended  against  the 
whole  force  of  Athens  in  B.C.  466.  Paros,  famous  for  its 
marble,  may  be  placed  next  to  Andros  and  Naxos.  It  was  the 
mother  city  of  Thasos,  and  of  Pharos  in  Illyria.  Little  is 
known  of  the  constitutional  history  of  any  of  the  Cyclades. 
Naxos,  however,  seems  to  have  gone  through  the  usual  course 
of  Greek  revolutionary  change,  being  governed  by  an  oligarchy 
until  the  time  of  Lygdamis  (B.C.  540  to  530),  who,  professing 
to  espouse  the  popular  cause,  made  himself  king.  His  tyranny 
did  not  last  long,  and  an  oligarchy  was  once  more  established, 
which  in  its  turn  gave  way  to  a  democracy  before  B.C.  501. 

Lemnos. — This  island,  which  had  a  Thracian  population  in 
the  earliest  times  and  then  a  Pelasgic  one,  was  first  Hellenized 
after  its  conquest,  about  B.C.  500,  by  the  great  Miltiades.  It 
was  from  this  time  regarded  as  an  Athenian  possession,  and 
seems  to  have  received  a  strong  body  of  colonists  from  Athens. 
Lenmos  contained  two  towns,  Hephaestia  and  Myrina,  which 
formed  separate  states  at  the  time  of  the  Athenian  conquest. 
Hephaestia  was  at  that  time  under  a  king. 

Thasos,  which  was  peculiarly  rich  in  minerals,  was  early 
colonized  by  the  Phoenicians,  who  worked  the  mines  very  suc- 
cessfully, lonians  from  Paros  Hellenized  it  about  B.C.  720  to 
700,  and  soon  raised  it  into  a  powerful  state.  Settlements  were 
made  by  the  Thasians  upon  the  main-land  opposite  their  north- 
em  shores,  whereof  the  most  important  were  Scapte-Hyle  and 
Datum.  The  gold-mines  in  this  quarter  were  largely  worked, 
and  in  B.C.  492  the  Thasians  had  an  annual  revenue  of  from 
200  to  300  talents  (£48,000  to  £72,000).  In  B.C.  494,  Histiaeus 
of  Miletus  attempted  to  reduce  the  island,  but  failed;  it  was, 
however,  in  the  following  year  forced  to  submit  to  the  Persians. 
On  the  defeat  of  Xerxes,  Thasos  became  a  member  of  the 
Athenian  confederacy,  but  revolting,  B.C.  465,  was  attacked 


and  forced  to  submit,  B.C.  463.  In  the  Peloponnesian  War  an- 
other revolt  (B.C.  411)  was  again  followed  by  submission,  B.C. 
408,  and  Thasos  thenceforth  continued,  except  for  short  inter- 
vals, subject  to  Athens. 

Crete. — The  population  of  Crete  in  the  early  times  was  of  a 
very  mixed  character.  Homer  enumerates  among  its  in- 
habitants Achaeans,  Eteocretes,  Cydonians,  Dorians,  and 
Pelasgi.  Of  these  the  Eteocretes  and  Cydonians  were  even 
farther  removed  than  the  Pelasgi  from  the  Hellenic  type.  In 
the  early  days  the  Cretans  were  famous  pirates,  whence  prob- 
ably the  traditions  of  Minos  and  his  naval  power.  Whether 
the  Dorian  population  was  really  settled  in  the  island  from  a 
remote  antiquity,  or  reached  Crete  from  the  Peloponnese  after 
the  Dorian  conquest  of  the  Achaean  kingdoms,  is  a  disputed 
point ;  but  the  latter  view  is,  on  the  whole,  the  more  probable. 
In  the  historical  times  the  Dorian  element  had  a  decided  pre- 
ponderance over  all  the  rest,  and  institutions  prevailed  in  all 
the  chief  cities  which  had  a  strong  resemblance  to  those  of 
Sparta.  The  Spartan  division  of  the  freemen  into  citizens  and 
pcricrci  existed  only  in  Crete;  and,  though  the  latter  country 
had  no  Helots,  their  place  was  supplied  by  slaves,  public  and 
private,  who  cultivated  the  lands  for  their  masters.  Among 
these  last  a  system  of  syssitia,  closely  resembling  the  Spartan, 
was  established ;  and  a  military  training  similar  in  character, 
though  less  severe.  The  island  was  parcelled  out  among  a 
number  of  separate  states,  often  at  war  with  one  another,  but 
wise  enough  to  unite  generally  against  a  common  enemy.  Of 
these  states  the  most  powerful  were  Gnossus  and  Gortyna,  each 
of  which  aspired  to  exercise  a  hegemony  over  the  whole  island. 
Next  in  importance  was  Cydonia,  and  in  later  times  Lyctus, 
or  Lyttus.  Originally  the  cities  were  ruled  by  hereditary 
kings ;  but  ere  long  their  places  were  taken  by  elected  Cosmi, 
ten  in  each  community,  who  held  office  for  a  certain  period, 
probably  a  year,  and  were  chosen  from  certain  families.  Side 
by  side  with  this  executive  board,  there  existed  in  each  com- 
munity a  senate  (yepovaia),  composed  of  all  who  had  served  the 
office  of  Cosmos  with  credit,  and  constituting  really  the  chief 
power  in  the  state.  There  was,  further,  an  assembly  (cKKXTjaia) 
comprising  all  the  citizens,  which  accepted  or  rejected  the 


measures  submitted  to  it,  but  had  no  initiative,  and  no  power  of 
debate  or  amendment.  Crete  took  no  part  in  the  general  af- 
fairs of  Greece  till  after  the  time  of  Alexander.  It  maintained 
a  policy  of  abstinence  during  both  the  Persian  and  Pelopon- 
nesian  Wars.  The  military  character  of  the  Cretans  was,  how- 
ever, maintained,  both  by  the  frequent  quarrels  of  the  states 
one  with  another,  and  by  the  common  practice  of  taking  ser- 
vice as  mercenaries. 

Cyprus. — This  island  seems  to  have  been  originally  occu- 
pied by  the  Kittim,  a  Japhetic  race,  who  left  their  name  in  the 
old  capital,  Citium  (Kirtov).  Soon  after  the  first  development 
of  Phoenician  power,  however,  it  passed  into  the  possession  of 
that  people,  who  long  continued  the  predominant  race  in  the 
island.  When  Hellenic  colonists  first  began  to  flow  into  it  is 
doubtful ;  but  there  is  evidence  that  by  the  time  of  Sargon 
(B.C.  720  to  700)  a  large  portion  of  the  island  was  Greek,  and 
under  Esarhaddon  all  the  cities,  except  Paphos,  Tamisus,  and 
Aphrodisias,  appeared  to  have  been  ruled  by  Greek  king^. 
Cyprus  seems  scarcely  ever  for  any  length  of  time  to  have  been 
mdependent.  It  was  held  by  the  Phoenicians  from  about  B.C. 
1 100  to  725,  by  the  Assyrians  from  about  B.C.  700  to  650,  by 
the  Egyptians  from  about  B.C.  550  to  525,  and  by  the  Persians 
from  B.C.  525  to  333.  The  most  important  of  the  cities, 
which,  by  whomsoever  founded,  eventually  became  Greek, 
were  Salamis  and  Ammochosta  (now  Famagusta)  on  the  east- 
em  coast ;  Citium,  Curium,  and  Paphos  on  the  southern ;  Soli 
and  Lapethus  on  the  northern ;  and  Limenia,  Tamasus,  and 
Idalium  in  the  interior.  Amathus  continued  always  Phoeni- 
cian. The  most  flourishing  of  the  Greek  states  was  Salamis ; 
and  the  later  history  of  the  island  is  closely  connected  with 
that  of  the  Salaminian  kings.  Among  these  were:  i.  Evel- 
thon,  contemporary  with  Arcesilaus  III.  of  Cyrene,  about  B.C. 
530 ;  2.  Gorgus ;  and  3.  Onesilus,  contemporary  with  Darius 
Hystaspis,  B.C.  520  to  500.  The  latter  joined  in  the  Ionian  re- 
volt, but  was  defeated  and  slain.  4.  Evagoras  I.,  contem- 
porary with  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  B.C.  449.  5.  Evagoras 
II.,  contemporary  with  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  B.C.  391  to  370. 
This  prince  rebelled,  and,  assisted  by  the  Athenians  and  Eg>'p- 
tians,  carried  on  a  long  war  against  the  Persians,  but,  after  the 


Peace  of  Antalcidas,  was  forced  to  submit,  B.C.  380,  retaining, 
however,  his  sovereignty.  6.  Protagoras,  brother  of  Evago- 
ras  II.,  contemporary  with  Artaxerxes  Ochus,  B.C.  350.  He 
banished  Evagoras,  son  of  Evagoras  II.,  and  joined  the  great 
revolt  which  followed  Ochus's  first  and  unsuccessful  expedi- 
tion against  Egypt.  This  revolt  was  put  down  before  B.C. 
346,  by  the  aid  of  mercenaries  commanded  by  Phocion ;  and 
thenceforth  Cyprus  continued  faithful  to  Persia,  till  Alexan- 
der's victory  at  Issus,  when  the  nine  kings  of  the  island  volun- 
tarily transferred  their  allegiance  to  Macedon,  B.C.  333. 

Greek   Colonies, 

The  number  of  the  Greek  colonies,  and  their  wide  diffusion, 
are  very  remarkable.  From  the  extreme  recess  of  the  Sea  of 
Azov  to  the  mouth  of  the  Mediterranean,  almost  the  entire 
coast,  both  of  continents  and  islands,  was  studded  with  the 
settlements  of  this  active  and  energetic  people.  Most  thickly 
were  these  sown  towards  the  north  and  the  north-east,  more 
sparingly  towards  the  south  and  west,  where  a  rival  civilization 
— the  Phoenician — cramped,  though  it  could  not  crush,  Gre- 
cian enterprise.  Carthage  and  Tyre  would  fain  have  kept  ex- 
clusively in  their  own  hands  these  regions ;  but  the  Greeks 
forced  themselves  in  here  and  there,  as  in  Egypt  and  in  the 
Cyrena'ica ;  while  of  their  own  northern  shore,  except  in  Spain, 
they  held  exclusive  possession,  meeting  their  rivals  in  the  isl- 
ands of  Corsica,  Sardinia,  Sicily,  and  Cyprus. 

The  main  causes  of  the  spread  of  the  Greeks  from  their 
proper  home  in  the  Hellenic  peninsula,  over  so  many  and  such 
distant  regions,  were  two  in  number.  The  race  was  prolific, 
and  often  found  itself  cramped  for  room,  either  from  the  mere 
natural  increase  of  population,  or  from  the  pressure  upon  it 
of  larger  and  more  powerful  nations.  Hence  arose  move- 
ments which  were,  properly  speaking,  migrations,  though  the 
term  "colonization"  has  been  improperly  applied  to  them.  To 
this  class  belong  the  ^olian,  Ionian,  and  Dorian  settlements 
in  Asia,  and  the  Achaean  in  Italy.  But  the  more  usual  cause  of 
movement  was  commercial  or  political  enterprise,  the  state 
which  founded  a  settlement  being  desirous  of  extending  its  in- 


fluence  or  its  trade  into  a  new  region.  Such  settlements  were 
colonies  proper;  and  between  these  and  the  mother  country 
there  was  always,  at  any  rate  at  first,  a  certain  connection, 
which  was  absent  in  the  case  of  settlements  arising  out  of  mi- 
grations. Occasionally  individual  caprice  or  political  disturb- 
ance led  to  the  foundation  of  a  new  city ;  but  such  cases  were 
comparatively  rare,  and  require  only  a  passing  mention. 

The  colonies  proper  of  the  Greeks  were  of  two  kinds, 
airoiKuu  and  kX-qpoxj^iat.  In  the  former,  the  political  connec- 
tion between  the  mother  country  and  the  colony  was  slight 
and  weak;  in  the  latter,  it  was  exceedingly  close  and  strong. 
'AiroiKiai  were,  in  fact,  independent  communities,  attached  to 
the  mother  country  merely  by  affection  and  by  certain  gener- 
ally prevalent  usages,  which,  however,  were  neither  altogether 
obligatory  nor  very  definite.  The  colony  usually  worshipped 
as  a  hero  its  original  founder  (ot/cMm79),  and  honored  the  same 
gods  as  the  parent  city.  It  bore  part  in  the  great  festivals  of 
its  metropolis,  and  contributed  offerings  to  them.  It  distin- 
guished by  special  honors  at  its  own  games  and  festivals  the 
citizens  of  the  parent  community.  It  used  the  same  emblems 
upon  its  coins.  Its  chief-priests  were,  in  some  instances, 
drawn  continually  from  the  mother  state;  and,  if  it  designed 
to  found  a  new  settlement  itself,  it  sought  a  leader  from  the 
same  quarter.  War  between  a  parent  city  and  a  colony  was 
regarded  as  impious,  and  a  certain  obligation  lay  on  each  to 
assist  the  other  in  times  of  danger.  But  the  observance  of 
these  various  usages  was  altogether  voluntary ;  no  attempt  was 
ever  made  to  enforce  them,  the  complete  political  indepen- 
dence of  the  aTToiKia  being  always  understood  and  acknowl- 
edged. In  the  KXrjpovx^a  the  case  was  wholly  different.  There 
the  state  sent  out  a  body  of  its  citizens  to  form  a  new  com- 
munity in  territory  which  it  regarded  as  its  own ;  the  settlers 
retained  all  their  rights  as  citizens  of  their  old  country,  and  in 
their  new  one  were  mainly  a  garrison  intended  to  maintain  the 
authority  of  those  who  sent  them  out.  The  dependence  of 
K\r)povx^t  on  the  parent  state  was  thus  entire  and  absolute. 
The  cleruchs  were  mainly  citizens  of  their  old  state,  to  whom 
certain  special  duties  had  been  assigned  and  certain  benefits 


The  Greek  settlements  of  whatsoever  kind  may  be  divided 
geographically  into  the  Eastern,  the  Western,  and  the  South- 
ern, Under  the  first  head  w^ill  come  those  of  the  eastern  and 
northern  shores  of  the  Mgea.n,  those  of  the  Propontis,  of  the 
Black  Sea,  and  of  the  Sea  of  Azov ;  under  the  second,  those  of 
Italy,  Sicily,  Gaul,  Spain,  and  the  adjacent  islands ;  under  the 
third,  those  of  Africa. 


From  the  Commencement  of  the  Wars  with  Persia,  B.C.  500, 
to  the  Battle  of  Chceroneia,  B.C.  338.* 

The  tendency  of  the  Greek  States,  in  spite  of  their  separatist 
leanings,  towards  consolidation  and  union  round  one  or  more 
centres,  has  been  already  noticed.     Up  to  the  date  of  the  Per- 

*  Sources.  For  the  first  portion  of  this  period,  from  B.C.  500  to  479, 
Herodotus  (books  v.  to  ix.)  is  our  chief  authority;  but  he  may  be 
supplemented  to  a  considerable  extent  from  Plutarch  ("  Vit.  Themist. 
and  Aristid.")  and  Nepos  ("  Vit.  Miltiad.,  Themist.,  Aristid.,  and 
Pausan.").  For  the  second  portion  of  the  period,  from  B.C.  479  to  431, 
the  outline  of  Thucydides  (book  i.  chaps.  24  to  146)  is  of  primary  im- 
portance, especially  for  the  chronology;  but  the  details  must  be  filled 
in  from  Diodorus  (book  xi.  and  first  half  of  book  xii.),  and,  as  before, 
from  Plutarch  and  Nepos.  (The  latter  has  one  "  Life  "  only  bearing 
on  this  period,  that  of  Cimon;  the  former  has  two,  those  of  Cimon  and 
Pericles.)  For  most  of  the  third  portion  of  the  period,  the  time  of  the 
Peloponnesian  War — B.C.  431  to  404 — we  have  the  invaluable  work  of 
Thucydides  (books  ii.  to  viii.)  as  our  single  and  sufficient  guide;  but, 
where  the  work  of  Thucydides  breaks  oflF,  we  must  supplement  his  con- 
tinuator,  Xenophon  ("  Hellenica,"  books  i.  and  ii.),  by  Diodorus  (last 
half  of  book  xii.).  For  the  fourth  portion  of  the  period,  from  the  close 
of  the  Peloponnesian  War  to  the  battle  of  Mantineia — B.C.  404  to  362 — 
Xenophon  in  his  "  Hellenica,"  his  "  Anabasis,"  and  his  "  Agesilaus," 
is  our  main  authority:  he  is  to  be  compared  with  Diodorus  (books  xiii. 
to  XV.),  Nepos  ("  Vit.  Lysand.,  Conon.,  Pelop.,  Epaminond.,  and 
Ages."),  and  Plutarch  ("Vit.  Pelop.,  Artaxerxis,  and  Ages.").  For 
the  remainder  of  the  history — from  B.C.  362  to  338 — in  default  of  con- 
temporary writers,  we  are  thrown  primarily  on  the  sixteenth  book  of 
Diodorus;  but  perhaps  more  real  knowledge  of  the  period  is  to  be 
derived  from  the  speeches  of  the  orators,  especially  those  of  Demos- 
thenes and  .^schines.  The  lives  of  Phocion  and  Demosthenes  in  Plu- 
tarch, and  those  of  Iphicrates,  Chabrias,  Timotheus,  and  Datames  in 
Nepos,  further  illustrate  the  period,  which  also  receives  some  light 
from  Justin,  Pausanias,  and  a  few  other  authors. 


sian  War,  Sparta  was  the  state  which  exercised  the  greatest 
centralizing  force,  and  gave  the  most  promise  of  uniting  under 
its  leadership  the  scattered  members  of  the  Hellenic  body. 
Events  prior  to  the  Persian  War  had  been  gradually  leading 
up  to  the  recognition  of  a  Spartan  headship.  It  required, 
however,  the  actual  occurrence  of  the  war  to  bring  rapidly  to 
maturity  what  hitherto  had  only  existed  in  embryo — to  place 
at  once  vividly  before  the  whole  race  the  consciousness  of 
Hellenic  unity,  to  drive  Sparta  to  the  assumption  of  leader- 
ship, and  to  induce  the  other  Greek  states  to  acquiesce  calmly 
in  the  new  position  occupied  by  one  of  their  number. 

The  beneficial  influence  of  an  extreme  common  danger  was 
not  limited  to  the  time  of  its  actual  existence.  The  tendency 
towards  consolidation,  having  once  obtained  a  certain  amount 
of  strength,  did  not  disappear  with  the  cause  which  brought  it 
into  being.  From  the  time  of  the  Persian  invasion,  we  notice 
a  general  inclination  of  the  Greeks  to  gather  themselves  to- 
gether into  confederations  under  leaders.  The  chief  states, 
Sparta,  Athens,  Boeotia,  Argos,  are  recognized  as  possible 
holders  of  such  a  hegemony ;  and  the  history  from  this  time 
thus  possesses  a  character  of  unity  for  which  we  look  in  vain  at 
an  earlier  period. 

The  first  expedition  of  Mardonius  having  been  frustrated, 
in  part  by  a  storm,  in  part  by  the  opposition  of  the  Bryges,  a 
tribe  of  Thracians,  it  was  resolved,  before  a  second  expedition 
was  sent  out,  to  send  heralds  and  summon  the  Greek  States 
severally  to  surrender.  The  result  of  this  policy  was  striking. 
The  island  states  generally,  and  many  of  the  continental  ones, 
made  their  submission.  Few,  comparatively,  rejected  the 
overture.  Athens  and  Sparta,  however,  marked  their  abhor- 
rence of  the  proposal  made  them  in  the  strongest  possible  way. 
In  spite  of  the  universally-received  law,  that  the  persons  of 
heralds  were  sacred,  they  put  the  envoys  of  Darius  to  death, 
and  thus  placed  themselves  beyond  all  possibility  of  further 
parley  with  the  enemy. 

The  victory  of  Marathon  gave  Greece  a  breathing-space  be- 
fore the  decisive  trial  of  strength  between  herself  and  Persia, 
which  was  manifestly  impending.  No  one  conceived  that  the 
danger  was  past,  or  that  the  Great  King  would  patiently  accept 


his  defeat,  without  seeking  to  avenge  it.  The  ten  years  which 
intervened  between  Marathon  and  Thermopylae  were  years  of 
preparation  as  much  to  Greece  as  to  Persia.  Athens  espe- 
cially, under  the  wise  guidance  of  Themistocles,  made  herself 
ready  for  the  coming  conflict  by  the  application  of  her  great 
pecuniary  resources  to  the  increase  of  her  navy,  and  by  the 
training  of  her  people  in  nautical  habits.  The  war  between 
this  state  and  ^gina,  which  continued  till  B.C.  481,  was  very 
advantageous  to  the  Grecian  cause,  by  stimulating  these  naval 
efforts,  and  enabling  Themistocles  to  persuade  his  country- 
men to  their  good. 

The  military  preparations  of  Darius  in  the  years  B.C.  489  to 
487,  and  those  of  Xerxes  in  B.C.  48410  481,  must  have  been 
well  known  to  the  Greeks,  who  could  not  doubt  the  quarter  in 
which  it  was  intended  to  strike  a  blow.  Accordingly,  we  find 
the  year  B.C.  481  given  up  to  counter-preparations.  A  gen- 
eral congress  held  at  the  Isthmus — a  new  feature  in  Greek  his- 
tory— arranged,  or  suppressed,  the  internal  quarrels  of  the 
states  attending  it ;  assigned  the  command  of  the  confederate 
forces,  both  by  land  and  sea,  to  Sparta ;  and  made  an  attempt 
to  obtain  assistance  from  distant,  or  reluctant,  members  of  the 
Hellenic  body — Argos,  Crete,  Corcyra,  and  Sicily.  A  resolu- 
tion was  at  the  same  time  taken  to  meet  the  invader  at  the  ex- 
treme northern  boundary  of  Greece,  where  it  was  thought  that 
the  pass  of  Tempe  offered  a  favorable  position  for  resistance. 

The  force  sent  to  Thessaly,  finding  the  pass  of  Tempe  un- 
tenable, withdraws  at  once ;  and  the  position  of  Thermopylae 
and  Artemisium  is  chosen  for  the  combined  resistance  to  the 
foe  by  sea  and  land.  Though  that  position  is  forced,  Attica 
overrun,  and  Athens  taken  and  burnt,  in  revenge  for  Sardis, 
yet  the  defeat  of  his  vast  fleet  at  Salamis  (B.C.  480)  alarms 
Xerxes,  and  causes  him  to  retire  with  all  his  remaining  vessels 
and  the  greater  part  of  his  troops.  Mardonius  stays  behind 
with  350,000  picked  men,  and  the  fate  of  Greece  has  to  be  de- 
termined by  a  land  battle.  This  is  fought  the  next  year,  B.C. 
479,  at  Plataea,  by  the  Spartan  king,  Pausanias,  and  the  Athen- 
ian general,  Aristides,  who  with  69,000  men  completely  defeat 
the  Persian  general,  take  his  camp,  and  destroy  his  army.  A 
battle  at  Mycale  (in  Asia  Minor),  on  the  same  day,  effects  the 


destruction  of  the  remnant  of  the  Persian  fleet ;  and  thus  the 
entire  invading  armament,  both  naval  and  mihtary,  is  swept 
away,  the  attempt  at  conquest  having  issued  in  utter  failure. 

The  discomfiture  of  the  assailing  force  which  had  threatened 
the  liberties  of  Greece,  while  it  was  far  from  bringing  the  war 
to  an  end,  entirely  changed  its  character.  Greece  now  took 
the  offensive.  Not  content  with  driving  her  foe  beyond  her 
borders,  she  aimed  at  pressing  Persia  back  from  the  advanced 
position  which  she  had  occupied  in  this  quarter,  regarding  it  as 
menacing  to  her  own  security.  At  the  same  time,  she  pun- 
ished severely  the  Grecian  States  which  had  invited  or  encour- 
aged the  invader.  Moreover,  she  vindicated  to  herself,  as  the 
natural  consequence  of  the  victories  of  Salamis  and  Mycale, 
the  complete  command  of  the  Levant,  or  Eastern  Mediter- 
ranean, and  the  sovereignty  over  all  the  littoral  islands,  includ- 
ing Cyprus. 

The  new  position  into  which  Greece  had  been  brought  by 
the  course  of  events,  a  position  requiring  activity,  enterprise, 
the  constant  employment  of  considerable  forces  at  a  distance 
from  home,  and  the  occupation  of  the  ^Egean  with  a  powerful 
navy,  led  naturally  to  the  great  change  which  now  took  place 
in  Grecian  arrangements — the  withdrawal  of  Sparta  from  the 
conduct  of  the  Persian  War,  and  the  substitution  of  Athens  as 
leader.  No  doubt  Sparta  did  not  see  at  once  all  which  this 
change  involved.  The  misconduct  of  Pausanias,  who  entered 
into  treasonable  negotiations  with  Xerxes,  and  the  want  of 
elasticity  in  her  system,  which  unfitted  her  for  distant  foreign 
wars,  made  Sparta  glad  to  retire  from  an  unpleasant  duty,  the 
burden  of  which  she  threw  upon  Athens,  without  suspecting 
the  profit  and  advantage  which  that  ambitious  state  would  de- 
rive from  undertaking  it.  She  did  not  suppose  that  she  was 
thereby  yielding  up  her  claim  to  the  headship  of  all  Greece  at 
home,  or  erecting  Athens  into  a  rival.  She  imagined  that  she 
could  shift  on  to  a  subordinate  responsibilities  which  were  too 
much  for  her,  without  changing  the  attitude  of  that  subordi- 
nate towards  herself.  This  was  a  fatal  mistake,  so  far  as  her 
own  interests  were  concerned,  and  had  to  be  redeemed  at  a 
vast  cost  during  a  war  which  lasted,  with  short  interruptions, 
for  the  space  of  more  than  fifty  years. 


On  Athens  the  change  made  by  the  transference  of  the  lead- 
ership had  an  effect  which,  if  not  really  advantageous  in  all  re- 
spects, seemed  at  any  rate  for  a  time  to  be  extraordinarily 
beneficial.  Her  patriotic  exertions  during  the  war  of  invasion 
appeared  to  have  received  thereby  their  due  reward.  She  had 
obtained  a  free  vent  for  her  superabundant  activity,  energy, 
and  enterprise.  She  was  to  be  at  the  head  of  a  league  of  the 
naval  powers  of  Greece,  offensive  and  defensive,  against  Per- 
sia. The  original  idea  of  the  league  was  that  of  a  free  con- 
federation. Delos  was  appointed  as  its  centre.  There  the 
Congress  was  to  sit,  and  there  was  to  be  the  common  treasury. 
But  Athens  soon  converted  her  acknowledged  headship 
{fy^eiiovCa)  into  a  sovereignty  (apxv)-  First,  the  right  of  states 
to  secede  from  the  confederacy,  which  was  left  undecided  by 
the  terms  of  the  confederation,  was  denied ;  and,  upon  its  as- 
sertion, was  decided  in  the  negative  by  the  unanswerable  argu- 
ment of  force.  Next,  the  treasury  was  transferred  from  Delos 
to  Athens,  and  the  meetings  of  the  Congress  were  discontin- 
ued. Finally,  the  separate  treasury  of  the  league  was  merged 
in  that  of  Athens;  the  money  and  ships  of  the  allies  were 
employed  for  her  own  aggrandizement  in  whatever  way  Athens 
pleased ;  and  the  various  members  of  the  league,  excepting  a 
few  of  the  more  powerful,  were  treated  as  Athenian  subjects, 
compelled  to  model  their  governments  in  accordance  with 
Athenian  views,  and  even  forced  to  allow  all  important  causes 
to  be  transferred  by  appeal  from  their  own  local  courts  to  those 
of  the  Imperial  City.  These  changes,  while  they  immensely 
increased  the  wealth  and  the  apparent  importance  and  power 
of  Athens,  did  nevertheless,  by  arousing  a  deep  and  general 
feeling  of  discontent  among  her  subject-allies,  introduce  an 
element  of  internal  weakness  into  her  system,  which,  when  the 
time  of  trial  came,  was  sure  to  show  itself  and  to  issue  in  dis- 
aster, if  not  in  ruin. 

Internal  changes  of  considerable  importance  accompanied 
this  exaltation  of  Athens  to  the  headship  of  an  Empire.  The 
power  of  the  Clisthenic  strategi  increased,  while  that  of  the  old 
archons  declined  until  it  became  a  mere  shadow.  The  de- 
mocracy advanced.  By  a  law  of  Aristides,  B.C.  478,  the  last 
vestige  of  a  property  qualification  was  swept  away,  and  every 



Athenian  citizen  was  made  eligible  to  every  office.  The  law- 
courts  were  remodelled  and  systematized  by  Pericles,  who  also 
introduced  the  plan  of  paying  the  poorer  citizens  for  their  at- 
tendance. The  old  council  of  the  Areopagus  was  assailed,  its 
political  power  destroyed,  and  its  functions  made  simply  judi- 
cial. At  the  same  time,  however,  certain  conservative  altera- 
tions were  introduced  by  way  of  balance.  The  establishment 
of  the  Nomophylaces  and  the  Nomothetae,  together  with  the 
institution  of  the  Indictment  for  Illegality  {ypa<f>r)  irapapofuop) 
had  a  decided  tendency  to  check  the  over-rapid  progress  of 
change.  The  practice  of  re-electing  year  after  year  a  favorite 
strategus  gave  to  the  republic  something  of  the  stability  of 
monarchy,  and  rendered  fluctuations  in  policy  less  frequent 
than  they  would  otherwise  have  been,  and  less  extreme. 
Meanwhile,  the  convenient  institution  of  ostracism  diminished 
the  violence  of  party  struggles,  and  preserved  the  state  from 
all  attempts  upon  its  liberties.  The  sixty  years  which  followed 
Salamis  form,  on  the  whole,  the  most  brilliant  period  of  Athe- 
nian history,  and  exhibit  to  us  the  exceptional  spectacle  of  a 
full-blown  democracy,  which  has  nevertheless  all  the  steadi- 
ness, the  firmness,  and  the  prudent  self-control  of  a  limited 
monarchy  or  other  mixed  government. 

Athens  also  during  this  period  became  the  most  splendid 
of  Greek  cities,  and  was  the  general  resort  of  all  who  excelled 
in  literature  or  in  the  arts.  The  Parthenon,  the  Theseium,  the 
temple  of  Victory,  the  Propylaea  were  built,  and  adorned  with 
the  paintings  of  Polygnotus  and  the  exquisite  sculptures  of 
Phidias  and  his  school.  Cimon  and  Pericles  vied  with  each 
other  in  the  beautifying  of  the  city  of  their  birth ;  and  the  en- 
couragement which  the  latter  especially  gave  to  talent  of  every 
kind,  collected  to  Athens  a  galaxy  of  intellectual  lights  such  as 
is  almost  without  parallel  in  the  history  of  mankind.  At  the 
same  time,  works  of  utility  were  not  neglected,  but  advanced 
at  an  equal  pace  with  those  whose  character  was  ornamental. 
The  defenses  of  Athens  were  rebuilt  immediately  after  the  de- 
parture of  the  Persians,  and  not  long  afterwards  the  fortifica- 
tions were  extended  to  the  sea  on  either  side  by  the  "  Long 
Walls  "  to  the  two  ports  of  Piraeus  and  Phalerum.  The  triple 
harbor  of  Piraeus  was  artificially  enlarged  and  strengthened. 


New  docks  were  made,  and  a  town  was  laid  out  on  a  grand 
plan  for  the  maritime  population,  A  magnificent  force  of  tri- 
remes was  kept  up,  maintained  always  at  the  highest  point  of 
efficiency.  Colonies  were  moreover  sent  out  to  distant  shores, 
and  new  towns  arose,  at  Amphipolis,  Thurii,  and  elsewhere, 
which  reproduced  in  remote  and  barbarous  regions  the  splen- 
dor and  taste  of  the  mother  city  on  a  reduced  scale. 

Although  Aristides  was  the  chief  under  whom  Athens  ob- 
tained her  leadership,  and  Themistocles  the  statesman  to 
whom  she  owed  it  that  she  was  thought  of  for  such  a  position, 
yet  the  guidance  of  the  state  on  her  new  career  was  intrusted 
to  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  but  to  Cimon.  Aristides  ap- 
pears to  have  been  regarded  as  deficient  in  military  talent ;  and 
the  dishonest  conduct  of  Themistocles  had  rendered  him  justly 
open  to  suspicion.  It  was  thus  to  the  son  of  the  victor  at 
Marathon  that  the  further  humiliation  of  Persia  was  now  com- 

The  revolt  of  the  Spartan  Helots  simultaneously  with  the 
siege  of  Thasos,  B.C.  464,  was  an  event  the  importance  of 
which  can  scarcely  be  over-estimated.  It  led  to  the  first  actual 
rupture  of  friendly  relations  between  Athens  and  Sparta ;  and 
it  occupied  the  attention  of  Sparta  so  completely  for  ten  years 
that  she  could  do  nothing  during  that  time  to  check  the  rapid 
advance  which  Athens  made,  so  soon  as  she  found  herself  free 
to  take  whatever  part  she  pleased  in  Grecian  politics.  It  like- 
wise caused  the  banishment  of  Cimon  (B.C.  461)  and  the  ele- 
vation of  Pericles  to  the  chief  direction  of  aflfairs — a  change  of 
no  small  moment,  being  the  substitution  of  a  consummate 
statesmen  as  chief  of  the  state  for  a  mere  moderately  skilful 

The  ambition  of  Pericles  aimed  at  securing  to  Athens  the 
first  position  in  Greece  both  by  land  and  sea.  He  understood 
that  Sparta  would  not  tolerate  such  pretensions,  and  was  pre- 
pared to  contest  with  that  power  the  supremacy  on  shore. 
But  he  believed  that  ultimately,  in  such  a  country  as  Greece, 
the  command  of  the  sea  would  carry  with  it  a  predominant 
power  over  the  land  also.  He  did  not  design  to  withdraw 
Athens  from  her  position  of  leader  against  Persia ;  but,  treating 
the  Persian  War  as  a  secondary  and  subordinate  affair,  he 


wished  to  direct  the  main  energies  of  his  country  towards  the 
acquisition  of  such  authority  and  influence  in  central  and 
northern  Greece  as  would  place  her  on  a  par  with  Sparta  as  a 
land  power.  At  the  same  time,  he  sought  to  strengthen  him- 
self by  alliances  with  such  states  of  the  Peloponnese  as  were 
jealous  of  Sparta ;  and  he  was  willing,  when  danger  threatened, 
to  relinquish  the  contest  with  Persia  altogether,  and  to  devote 
all  his  efforts  to  the  establishment  of  the  supremacy  of  Athens 
over  Greece. 

The  culminating  period  of  Athenian  greatness  was  the  in- 
terval between  CEnophyta  and  Coroneia,  B.C.  456  to  447. 
Pericles,  who  at  the  outset  appeared  likely  to  succeed  in  all 
that  he  had  planned,  learned  gradually  by  the  course  of  events 
that  he  had  overrated  his  country's  powers,  and  wisely  acqui- 
esced in  the  inevitable.  From  about  B.C.  454  his  aim  was  to 
consolidate  and  conserve,  not  to  enlarge,  the  dominion  of 
Athens.  But  the  policy  of  moderation  came  too  late.  Bceo- 
tia,  Phocis,  and  Locris  burned  to  be  free,  and  determined  to  try 
the  chance  of  arms,  so  soon  as  a  convenient  occasion  offered. 
Coroneia  came,  and  Athens  was  struck  down  upon  her  knees. 
Two  years  later,  on  the  expiration  of  the  five  years'  peace  (B.C. 
445),  Sparta  arranged  a  combination  which  threatened  her 
rival  with  actual  destruction.  Megara  on  the  one  side  and 
Euboea  on  the  other  were  stirred  to  revolt,  while  a  Pelopon- 
nesian  force  under  Pleistoanax  and  Cleanridas  invaded  Attica 
at  Eleusis.  But  the  crisis  was  met  by  Pericles  with  firmness 
and  wisdom.  The  Spartan  leaders  were  accessible  to  bribes, 
and  the  expenditure  of  a  few  talents  relieved  Athens  from  her 
greatest  danger.  Euboea,  the  possession  of  which  was  of  vital 
consequence  to  the  unproductive  Attica,  received  a  severe  pun- 
ishment for  her  disaffection  at  the  hands  of  Pericles  himself. 
Megara,  and  a  few  outlying  remnants  of  the  land  empire  en- 
joyed from  B.C.  456  to  447,  were  made  the  price  of  peace.  By 
the  cession  of  what  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  retain, 
Athens  purchased  for  herself  a  long  term  of  rest,  during  which 
she  might  hope  to  recruit  her  strength  and  prepare  herself  to 
make  another  struggle  for  the  supremacy. 

The  struggle  which  now  commenced  is  known  by  the  name 
of  the  "  Peloponnesian  War."     It  lasted  twenty-seven  years, 


from  B.C.  431  to  404,  and  extended  itself  over  almost  the  whole 
of  the  Grecian  world,  involving  almost  every  state  from  Selinus 
at  the  extreme  west  of  Sicily  to  Cnidus  and  Rhodes  in  the 
.^gean.  Though  in  the  main  a  war  for  supremacy  between 
the  two  great  powers  of  Greece,  Athens  and  Sparta,  it  was  also 
to  a  certain  extent  "  a  struggle  of  principles,"  and  likewise, 
though  to  a  lesser  extent,  "  a  war  of  races."  Speaking  gen- 
erally, the  Ionian  Greeks  were  banded  together  on  the  one 
side,  and  made  common  cause  with  the  Athenians ;  while  the 
Dorian  Greeks,  with  a  few  remarkable  exceptions,  gave  their 
aid  to  the  Spartans.  But  political  sympathy  determined,  to  a 
greater  degree  than  race,  the  side  to  which  each  state  should 
attach  itself.  Athens  and  Sparta  were  respectively  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Greeks  the  representatives  of  the  two  principles  of  de- 
mocracy and  oligarchy ;  and  it  was  felt  that,  according  as  the 
one  or  the  other  preponderated,  the  cause  of  oligarchical  or 
democratical  government  was  in  the  ascendant.  The  prin- 
ciple of  non-intervention  was  unknown.  '  Both  powers  alike 
were  propagandist;  and  revolutionized,  as  occasion  offered, 
the  constitutions  of  their  dependencies.  Even  without  inter- 
vention, party  spirit  was  constantly  at  work,  and  the  triumph 
of  a  faction  over  its  rival  in  this  or  that  petty  state  might  at  any 
time  disturb  the  balance  of  power  between  the  two  chief  bel- 

These  two  belligerents  offered  a  remarkable  contrast  to  each 
other  in  many  respects.  Athens  was  predominantly  a  mari- 
time, Sparta  a  land  power.  Athens  had  influence  chiefly  on 
the  eastern  side  of  Greece  and  in  Asia ;  Sparta,  on  the  western 
side  of  Greece,  and  in  Italy  and  Sicily.  Again,  the  position  of 
Sparta  with  respect  to  her  allies  was  very  different  from  that 
of  Athens. 

Sparta  was  at  the  head  of  a  purely  voluntary  confederacy, 
the  members  of  which  regarded  their  interests  as  bound 
up  in  hers,  and  accepted  her,  on  account  of  her  superior 
military  strength,  as  their  natural  leader.  Athens  was  mis- 
tress of  an  empire  which  she  had  acquired,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  by  force ;  and  was  disliked  by  most  of  her  subject-al- 
lies, who  accepted  her  leadership,  not  from  choice,  but  from 
compulsion.     Thus  Sparta  was  able  to  present  herself  before 


men's  minds  in  the  character  of  "  liberator  of  Greece ;"  though, 
had  she  obtained  a  complete  ascendancy  over  the  rest  of 
Greece,  her  yoke  would  probably  have  been  found  at  least  as 
galling  as  the  Athenian. 

Among  the  principal  advantages  which  Athens  possessed 
over  Sparta  at  the  commencement  of  the  war  was  the  better 
arrangement  of  her  finance.  Sparta  can  scarcely  be  said  to 
have  had  a  revenue  at  all.  Her  military  expenses  were  met  by 
extraordinary  contributions,  which  she  and  her  allies  levied 
upon  themselves,  as  occasion  seemed  to  require.  Athens,  on 
the  contrary,  had  an  organized  system,  which  secured  her  an 
annual  revenue  greatly  exceeding  her  needs  in  time  of  peace, 
and  sufficient  to  support  the  whole  expense  of  a  moderate  war. 
When  extraordinary  efforts  were  required,  she  could  fall  back 
on  her  accumulations,  which  were  large ;  or  she  could  augment 
her  income  by  requiring  from  her  citizens  an  increased  rate  of 

The  Peloponnesian  War  may  be  divided  into  three  periods : 
1st.  From  the  commencement  until  the  conclusion  of  the 
Peace  of  Nicias — ten  years — B.C.  431  to  421.  2d.  From  the 
Peace  of  Nicias  to  its  formal  rupture  by  Sparta — eight  years, 
B.C.  421  to  413.  3d.  From  the  rupture  of  the  Peace  of  Nicias 
to  the  capture  of  Athens — rather  more  than  nine  years — B.C. 
413  to  404. 

First  Period. — The  struggle  was  conducted  for  two  years 
and  a  half  by  Pericles ;  then  by  Nicias,  but  under  the  check  of 
a  strong  opposition  led  by  Cleon.  Athens  was  continually 
more  and  more  successful  up  to  B.C.  424,  when  the  fortune  of 
war  changed.  The  rash  expedition  into  Boeotia  in  that  year 
lost  Athens  the  flower  of  her  troops  at  Delium;  while  the 
genius  of  the  young  Spartan,  Brasidas,  first  saved  Megara,  and 
then,  transferring  the  war  into  Thrace,  threatened  to  deprive 
the  Athenians  of  the  entire  mass  of  their  allies  in  this  quarter. 
The  effort  made  to  recover  Amphipolis  (B.C.  422)  having 
failed,  and  Athens  fearing  greatly  the  further  spread  of  dis- 
affection among  her  subject-cities,  peace  was  made  on  terms 
disadvantageous  but  not  dishonorable  to  Athens — the  general 
principle  of  the  peace  being  the  statu  quo  ante  bellum,  but  cer- 
tain exceptions  being  made  with  regard  to  Plataea  and  the 

150  RAWLINSON    . 

Thracian  towns,  which  placed  Athens  in  a  worse  position  than 
that  which  she  held  when  the  war  began. 

Second  Period. — The  continuance  of  hostilities  during  this 
period,  while  there  was  peace,  and  even  for  some  time  alliance, 
between  the  two  chief  belligerents,  was  attributable,  at  first, 
to  the  hatred  which  Corinth  bore  to  Athens,  and  to  the  en- 
ergy which  she  showed  in  forming  coalitions  against  her  de- 
tested rival.  Afterwards  it  was  owing  also  in  part  to  the  am- 
bition and  influence  of  Alcibiades,  who  desired  a  renewal  of  the 
war,  hoping  thereby  to  obtain  a  sphere  suitable  to  his  talents. 
Argos,  during  this  period,  rose  for  a  time  into  consideration, 
her  alliance  being  sought  on  all  hands ;  but  the  battle  of  Man- 
tinea,  by  destroying  the  flower  of  her  troops,  once  more  broke 
her  power,  and  her  final  gravitation  to  the  Athenian  side  was 
of  no  consequence. 

Far  more  important  than  his  Peloponnesian  schemes  wa6 
the  project,  which  Alcibiades  now  brought  forward,  of  con- 
quering Sicily.  The  success  of  this  attempt  would  have  com- 
pletely destroyed  the  balance  of  power  in  Greece,  and  have 
made  Athens  irresistible.  The  project,  though  perhaps  some- 
what over-bold,  would  probably  have  succeeded,  had  the  task 
of  carrying  it  through  to  the  end  been  intrusted  to  the  genius 
which  conceived  it.  Unfortunately  for  Athens,  she  was  forced 
to  choose  between  endangering  her  liberties  by  maintaining 
Alcibiades  in  power  and  risking  the  failure  of  an  expedition 
to  which  she  was  too  far  committed  for  her  to  be  able  to  re- 

The  recall  of  Alcibiades  was  injurious  to  Athens  in  various 
ways.  It  deprived  her  of  her  best  general,  and  of  the  only 
statesman  she  possessed  who  was  competerft  to  deal  with  all 
the  peculiar  difficulties  of  the  expedition.  It  made  Sparta 
fully  acquainted  with  the  Athenian  schemes  for  the  manage- 
ment of  Sicilian  affairs,  and  so  enabled  her  to  counteract  them. 
Finally,  it  transferred  to  the  enemy  the  most  keen  and  subtle 
intellect  of  the  time,  an  intellect  almost  certain  to  secure  suc- 
cess to  the  side  which  it  espoused.  Still,  if  the  choice  lay  (as 
probably  it  did)  between  accepting  Alcibiades  as  tyrant  and 
driving  him  into  exile,  we  must  hold  Athens  justified  in  the 
course  which  she  took.    There  might  easily  be  a  rapid  recov- 


cry  from  the  effects  of  a  disastrous  expedition.  Who  could 
predict  the  time  at  which  the  state  would  recover  from  the  loss 
of  those  liberties  on  which  her  prosperity  had  recently  de- 
pended ? 

Third  Period. — The  maintenance  of  the  "  Peace  of  Nicias  " 
had  long  been  rather  nominal  than  real.  Athens  and  Sparta 
had  indeed  abstained  hitherto  from  direct  attacks  upon  each 
other's  territories ;  but  they  had  been  continually  employed  in 
plots  against  each  other's  interests,  and  they  had  met  in  con- 
flict both  in  the  Peloponnese  and  in  Sicily.  Now  at  length, 
after  eight  years,  the  worn-out  fiction  of  a  pretended  amity  was 
discarded ;  and  the  Spartans,  by  the  advice  of  Alcibiades,  not 
only  once  more  invaded  Attica,  but  made  a  permanent  settle- 
ment at  Deceleia  within  sight  of  Athens.  The  main  theatre  of 
the  struggle  continued,  however,  to  be  Sicily;  where  the 
Athenians  clung  with  desperation  to  a  scheme  which  prudence 
required  them  to  relinquish,  and  lavishly  sent  fleet  after  fleet 
and  army  after  army  to  maintain  a  conflict  which  was  hopeless. 
Still  the  expedition  might  have  re-embarked,  without  suffering 
any  irreparable  disaster,  had  it  not  been  for  an  improvement 
in  ship-building,  devised  by  the  Corinthians  and  eagerly  adopt- 
ed by  the  Syracusans,  which  deprived  Athens  of  her  command 
of  the  sea,  and  forced  her  armies  to  surrender  at  discretion. 
Thus  the  fatal  blow,  from  which  Athens  never  recovered,  was 
struck  by  the  hatred  of  Corinth,  which,  in  the  course  of  a  few 
weeks,  more  than  avenged  the  injuries  of  half  a  century. 

The  immediate  result  of  the  disasters  in  Sicily  was  the  trans- 
ference of  the  war  to  Asia  Minor.  Her  great  losses  in  ships 
and  sailors  had  so  crippled  the  naval  power  of  Athens,  that  her 
command  of  the  sea  was  gone ;  the  more  so,  as  her  adversaries 
were  strengthened  by  the  accession  to  their  fleet  of  a  powerful 
Sicilian  contingent.  The  knowledge  of  this  entire  change  in 
the  relative  position  of  the  two  belligerents  at  sea,  encouraged 
the  subject-allies  generally  to  shake  off  the  Athenian  yoke, 
Sparta  saw  the  importance  of  encouraging  this  defection ;  and 
crossing  the  ^gean  Sea  in  force,  made  the  theatre  of  war  Asia 
Minor,  the  islands,  and  the  Hellespont.  Here,  for  the  first 
time,  she  was  able  to  make  the  Persian  alliance,  which  she  had 
so  long  sought,  of  use  to  her.    Persian  gold  enabled  her  to 



maintain  a  fleet  equal  or  superior  to  that  of  Athens,  and  ulti- 
mately gave  her  the  victory  in  the  long  doubtful  contest. 

What  most  surprises  us,  in  the  third  and  last  period  of  the 
war,  is  the  vigor  of  the  Athenian  defense;  the  elasticity  of 
spirit,  the  energy,  and  the  fertility  of  resource  which  seemed 
for  a  time  to  have  completely  surmounted  the  Sicilian  calamity, 
and  made  the  final  issue  once  more  appear  to  be  doubtful. 
This  wonderful  recovery  of  strength  and  power  was,  no  doubt, 
in  a  great  measure  due  to  the  genius  of  one  man — Alcibiades. 
But  something  must  be  attributed  to  the  temper  and  character 
of  the  people.  Athens,  like  Rome,  is  the  greatest  and  most 
admirable  in  misfortune ;  it  is  then  that  her  courage,  her  pa- 
tience, and  her  patriotism  deserve  and  command  our  sympa- 

The  arrival  of  the  younger  Cyrus  in  Asia  Minor  was  of  great 
advantage  to  Sparta,  and  must  be  regarded  as  mainly  effective 
in  bringing  the  war  rapidly  to  a  successful  issue.  Hitherto 
the  satraps  had  pursued  the  policy  which  the  interests  of  Persia 
required,  had  trimmed  the  balance,  and  contrived  that  neither 
side  should  obtain  a  decided  preponderance  over  the  other. 
But  Cyrus  had  personal  views,  which  such  a  course  would  not 
have  subserved.  He  required  the  assistance  of  Greek  troops 
and  ships  in  the  great  enterprise  that  he  was  meditating ;  and, 
to  obtain  such  aid,  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  make  a  real 
friend  of  one  belligerent  or  the  other.  He  chose  Sparta,  as 
best  suited  to  furnish  him  the  aid  he  required;  and,  having 
made  his  choice,  he  threw  himself  into  the  cause  with  all  the 
energy  of  his  nature.  It  was  his  prompt  and  lavish  generosity 
which  prevented  the  victory  of  Arginusae  from  being  of  any 
real  service  to  Athens,  and  enabled  Lysander  to  undo  its  ef- 
fects and  regain  the  mastery  of  the  sea,  within  the  space  of 
thirteen  months,  by  the  crowning  victory  of  ^gos-potami. 
That  victory  may  also  have  been  in  another  way  the  result  of 
Lysander's  command  of  Persian  gold ;  for  it  is  a  reasonable 
suspicion  that  some  of  the  Athenian  commanders  were  bribed, 
and  that  the  negligence  which  lost  the  battle  had  been  paid  for 
out  of  the  stores  of  Cyrus. 

The  internal  history  of  Athens  during  the  third  period  of  the 
Peloponnesian  War  is  full  of  interest.     The  disastrous  termi- 


nation  of  the  Sicilian  expedition  threw  discredit  upon  demo- 
cratical  institutions;  and  immediately  after  the  news  of  it 
reached  Athens,  the  constitution  was  modified  in  an  aristo- 
cratic direction,  B.C.  412.  The  change,  however,  then  made 
was  not  regarded  as  sufficient;  and  in  B.C.  411  a  more  com- 
plete revolution  was  effected.  Cowed  by  a  terrorism  which 
the  political  clubs  knew  well  how  to  exercise,  the  Athenian 
democracy  submitted  to  see  itself  abolished  in  a  perfectly  legal 
manner.  A  nominated  Council  of  400  succeeded  to  the  elect- 
ive fiovXr) ;  and  a  pretended  committee  of  5000  took  the  place 
of  the  time-honored  iKKKrjaia.  This  government,  which  was 
practically  that  of  three  or  four  individuals,  lasted  for  about 
four  months,  when  it  was  overthrown  by  violence,  and  the  de- 
mocracy was  restored  again  under  certain  restrictions. 

The  triumph  of  Sparta  was  the  triumph  throughout  Greece 
of  oligarchical  principles.  At  Athens  the  democracy  was 
abolished,  and  the  entire  control  of  the  government  placed  in 
the  hands  of  a  Board  of  Thirty,  a  board  which  has  acquired  in 
history  the  ominous  name  of  "  The  Thirty  Tyrants."  Boards 
of  Ten  (SeKapxiat),  chosen  by  himself,  were  set  up  by  Lysander 
as  the  supreme  authority  in  Samos  and  in  other  cities,  while 
Spartan  "  harmosts,"  with  indefinite  powers,  were  established 
everywhere.  The  Greeks  found  that,  instead  of  gaining  by 
the  change  of  masters,  they  had  lost ;  they  had  exchanged  the 
yoke  of  a  power,  which,  if  rapacious,  was  at  any  rate  refined, 
civilized,  and  polished,  for  that  of  one  which  added  to  rapacity 
a  coarse  arrogance  and  a  cruel  harshness  which  were  infinitely 
exasperating  and  offensive.  Even  in  the  matter  of  the  tribute 
there  was  no  relaxation,  Sparta  found  that,  to  maintain  an 
empire,  she  must  have  a  revenue ;  and  the  contributions  of  her 
subject-allies  were  assessed  at  the  annual  rate  of  1000  talents 

The  expedition  of  the  Ten  Thousand,  B.C.  401  to  400,  be- 
longs less  to  the  history  of  Greece  than  to  that  of  Persia ;  but 
it  had  some  important  consequences  on  the  after  course  of 
Greek  policy.  The  weakness  of  Persia  was  laid  bare ;  it  was 
seen  that  her  capital  might  be  reached,  and  that  Greek  troops 
might  march  in  security  from  end  to  end  of  the  Empire.  Hith- 
erto even  the  attacks  of  the  Greeks  on  Persian  territory  had 



been  in  a  measure  defensive,  having  for  their  object  the  secur- 
ity of  European  Hellas,  or  the  liberation  of  the  Greek  cities  in 
Asia.  Henceforth  ideas  of  actual  conquest  floated  before  the 
Grecian  mind ;  and  the  more  restless  spirits  looked  to  this  quar- 
ter as  the  best  field  for  their  ambition.  On  the  side  of  the  Per- 
sians, alarm  at  the  possible  results  of  Greek  audacity  began  to 
be  felt,  and  a  new  policy  was  developed  in  consequence.  The 
Court  of  Susa  henceforth  took  an  active  part  in  the  Greek 
struggles,  allying  itself  continually  with  one  side  or  the  other, 
and  employing  the  treasures  of  the  state  in  defraying  the  cost 
of  Greek  armaments,  or  in  corrupting  Greek  statesmen. 
Finally,  Persia  came  to  be  viewed  as  the  ultimate  arbiter  of  the 
Greek  quarrels ;  and  rescripts  of  the  Great  King  at  once  im- 
posed peace  on  the  belligerents,  and  defined  the  terms  on 
which  it  should  be  concluded. 

The  immediate  consequence  of  the  Cyreian  expedition  was 
war  between  Sparta  and  Persia.  Sparta  was  known  to  have 
lent  her  aid  to  Cyrus ;  and  Tissaphernes  had  orders,  on  his  re- 
turn to  the  coast,  to  retaliate  by  severities  on  the  Greek  cities, 
which  were  now  under  the  protection  of  the  Spartans.  The 
challenge  thus  thrown  down  was  readily  accepted ;  and  for  six 
years — B.C.  399  to  394 — Sparta  carried  on  war  in  Asia  Minor, 
first  under  generals  of  no  great  talent,  but,  finally,  under  Age- 
silaiis,  who  succeeded  in  making  the  Great  King  tremble  for 
his  empire.  The  consequences  would  probably  have  been 
serious,  if  Persia  had  not  succeeded  in  effecting  a  combination 
against  the  Spartans  in  Greece  itself,  which  forced  them  to  re- 
call Agesilaiis  from  Asia. 

Instigated  by  the  Persians,  and  jealous  of  the  power  of 
Sparta,  Argos,  Thebes,  Corinth,  and  Athens  formed  an  alli- 
ance against  her  in  the  year  B.C.  395.  A  war  of  a  checkered 
character  followed.  Sparta  lost  the  command  of  the  sea  by 
the  great  victory  of  Conon  at  Cnidus,  but  maintained  her  su- 
periority on  land  in  the  battles  of  Corinth,  Coronaea,  and  Le- 
chaeum.  Still  she  found  the  strain  upon  her  resources  so 
great,  and  the  difficulty  of  resisting  the  confederation,  sup- 
ported as  it  was  by  the  gold  and  the  ships  of  Persia,  so  extreme, 
that  after  a  few  years  she  felt  it  necessary  to  procure  peace  at 
any  cost.     It  was  at  her  instance,  and  by  her  energetic  exer- 



tions,  that  Persia  was  induced  to  come  forward  in  the  new 
character  of  arbiter,  and  to  require  the  acceptance  by  the 
Greeks  generally  of  the  terms  contained  in  the  "  Peace  of 
Antalcidas  " — terms  disgraceful  to  the  Greeks,  but  advanta- 
geous to  Sparta,  as  the  clause  establishing  the  independence  of 
all  the  Greek  states  (TroXew)  injured  Corinth  and  Thebes,  while 
it  left  her  own  power  untouched. 

The  immediate  consequences  of  the  "  Peace  of  Antalcidas  " 
were  the  separation  of  Corinth  from  Argos,  and  the  deposi- 
tion of  Thebes  from  her  hegemony  over  the  Boeotian  cities. 
The  re-establishment  of  Plataea  followed,  a  judicious  measure 
on  the  part  of  Sparta,  tending  to  produce  estrangement  be- 
tween Thebes  and  Athens.  Sparta  was  now  at  the  zenith  of 
her  power.  Claiming  the  right  of  seeing  to  the  execution  of 
the  treaty  which  she  had  negotiated,  she  extended  her  influ- 
ence on  all  sides,  nowhere  meeting  with  resistance.  But  the 
intoxication  of  success  had  its  usual  effect  in  developing  sel- 
fishness and  arrogance — fatal  defects  in  a  ruling  state,  always 
stirring  up  sentiments  of  hostility,  which  sooner  or  later  pro- 
duce the  downfall  of  the  power  that  provokes  them.  The 
domineering  insolence  which  dictated  to  Mantineia  and  Phlius, 
might  indeed,  if  confined  to  those  cities,  or  others  like  them, 
have  had  no  ill  results ;  but  when,  in  time  of  peace,  the  citadel 
of  Thebes  was  occupied,  and  the  act,  if  not  commanded,  was  at 
least  approved  and  adopted  by  Sparta,  the  bitter  enmity  of  one 
of  the  most  powerful  states  of  Greece  was  aroused,  and  every 
other  state  was  made  to  feel  that,  in  its  turn,  it  might  by  some 
similar  deed  be  deprived  of  independence.  But  the  aggressor 
was  for  the  time  triumphant ;  and  having  no  open  enemy  now 
within  the  limits  of  Greece  Proper,  sought  one  on  the  borders 
of  Thrace  and  Macedon,  where,  under  the  headship  of  01)11- 
thus,  a  powerful  confederacy  was  growing  up,  consisting  in 
part  of  Greek,  in  part  of  Macedonian,  cities.  A  war  of  four 
years,  B.C.  382  to  379,  sufficed  to  crush  this  rising  power,  and 
thus  to  remove  from  Northern  Greece  the  only  rival  which 
Macedon  had  seriously  to  fear — the  only  state  which,  by  its 
situation,  its  material  resources,  and  its  numerical  strength, 
might  have  offered  a  considerable  obstacle  to  the  advance  of 
the  Macedonian  kings  to  empire. 


Thus  far  success  had  attended  every  enterprise  of  Sparta, 
however  cruel  or  wicked ;  but  at  length  the  day  of  retribution 
came.  Pelopidas  and  his  friends  effected  a  bloody  revolution 
at  Thebes,  recovered  the  Cadmeia,  expelling  the  Spartan  gar- 
rison, and  set  about  the  restoration  of  the  old  Boeotian  league. 
Athens,  injured  and  insulted,  declared  war  against  her  old 
rival,  made  alliance  with  Thebes,  revived  her  old  confederacy 
on  fair  and  equitable  terms,  and  recovered  the  empire  of  the 
seas  by  the  victories  of  Naxos  and  Leucas.  All  the  efforts  of 
Sparta  against  her  two  antagonists  failed,  and  after  seven  years 
of  unsuccessful  war  she  was  reduced  to  make  a  second  appeal 
to  Persia,  who  once  more  dictated  the  terms  on  which  peace 
was  to  be  made.  Athens,  now  grown  jealous  of  Thebes,  was 
content  to  sign,  and  her  confederates  followed  her  lead ;  but 
Thebes  by  the  mouth  of  Epaminondas  declined,  unless  she 
were  recognized  as  head  of  Boeotia.  As  Sparta  positively  re- 
fused to  admit  this  claim,  Thebes  was  publicly  and  formally 
excluded  from  the  Treaty  of  Peace. 

Sparta  now,  having  only  Thebes  to  contend  with,  imagined 
that  her  triumph  was  secure,  and  sent  her  troops  into  Bceotia 
under  Cleombrotus,  hoping  to  crush  and  destroy  Thebes. 
But  the  magnificent  victory  of  Epaminondas  at  Leuctra — the 
fruit  at  once  of  extraordinary  strategic  skill  at  the  time,  and  of 
an  excellent  training  of  his  soldiers  previously — dashed  all 
these  hopes  to  the  ground.  Sparta  fell,  suddenly  and  forever, 
from  her  high  estate.  Almost  all  Central  Greece  joined 
Thebes.  Arcadia  rose  and  began  to  organize  itself  as  a  federa- 
tion. The  Lacedaemonian  harmosts  were  expelled  from  all 
the  cities,  and  the  philo-Laconian  party  was  everywhere  put 
down.  Epaminondas,  moreover,  as  soon  as  the  murder  of 
Jason  of  Pherae  left  him  free  to  act,  redoubled  his  blows.  En- 
tering the  Peloponnese,  he  ravaged  the  whole  Spartan  terri- 
tory at  will,  and  even  threatened  the  city ;  which  Agesilaiis  with 
some  difficulty  preserved.  But  these  temporary  losses  and  dis- 
graces were  as  nothing  compared  with  the  permanent  injuries 
which  the  prudent  policy  of  the  Theban  leader  inflicted  on  his 
foe,  in  the  constitution  of  the  Arcadian  league  and  foundation 
of  Megalopolis ;  and,  still  more,  in  the  re-establishment  of  an 
independent  Messenia  and  the  building  of  Messene,    Hence- 



forth  Sparta  was  a  second-rate  rather  than  first-rate  power. 
She  ceased  to  exercise  a  hegemony,  and  was  territorially  not 
much  larger  than  Arcadia  or  Argos. 

In  her  distress,  Sparta  makes  appeal  to  Athens  for  aid ;  and 
an  alliance  is  formed  between  these  two  powers  on  terms  of 
equality,  which  is  joined  after  a  time  by  Achaea,  Elis,  and  even 
by  most  of  Arcadia,  where  a  jealousy  of  Theban  power  and 
interference  is  gradually  developed.  Thebes,  partly  by  mis- 
management, partly  by  the  mere  circumstance  of  her  being 
now  the  leading  state,  arouses  hostility,  and  loses  ground  in 
the  Peloponnese,  which  she  endeavors  to  recover  by  obtaining 
and  exhibiting  a  Persian  rescript,  declaring  her  the  head  of 
Greece,  and  requiring  the  other  states  to  submit  to  her  under 
pain  of  the  Great  King's  displeasure.  But  missives  of  this 
character  have  now  lost  their  force.  The  rescript  is  gener- 
ally rejected ;  and  the  power  of  Thebes  in  the  Peloponnese  con- 
tinues to  decline. 

Meanwhile,  however,  she  was  extending  her  influence  in 
Northern  Greece,  and  even  beyond  its  borders.  Her  armies 
were  sent  into  Thessaly,  where  they  contended  with  Alexander 
of  Pherae,  the  brother  of  Jason,  and,  after  some  reverses,  suc- 
ceeded in  reducing  him  to  dependence.  All  Thessaly,  to- 
gether with  Magnesia  and  Achaea  Phthiotis,  were  thus  brought 
under  her  sway.  In  Macedonia,  she  arbitrated  between  the 
different  claimants  of  the  throne,  and  took  hostages,  among 
whom  was  the  young  prince  Philip,  Her  fleet  about  the  same 
time  proceeded  to  the  coast  of  Asia. 

But  the  honor  of  Thebes  required  that  her  influence  should 
be  re-established  in  the  Peloponnese,  and  her  friends  there  re- 
leased from  a  situation  which  had  become  one  of  danger.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  B.C.  362,  Epaminondas  once  more  took  the  field, 
and  entering  the  Peloponnese,  was  within  a  little  of  surprising 
Sparta.  Disappointed,  however,  of  this  prey  by  the  activity  of 
Agesilaiis,  and  of  Mantineia  by  the  sudden  arrival  of  an  Athe- 
nian contingent,  he  brought  matters  to  a  decision  by  a  pitched 
battle ;  in  which,  repeating  the  tactics  of  Leuctra,  he  once  more 
completely  defeated  the  Spartans  and  their  allies,  dying,  how- 
ever, in  the  arms  of  victory,  B.C.  362.  His  death  almost  com- 
pensated Sparta  for  her  defeat,  since  he  left  no  worthy  sue- 


cessor,  and  Thebes,  which  he  and  his  friend  Pelopidas  had 
raised  to  greatness,  sank  back  at  once  to  a  level  with  several 
other  powers. 

The  result  of  the  struggle  which  Sparta  had  provoked  by  her 
seizure  of  the  Theban  citadel  was  the  general  exhaustion  of 
Greece.  No  state  was  left  with  any  decided  predominance. 
The  loss  of  all  in  men  and  money  was  great ;  and  the  battle  of 
Mantineia  deprived  Greece  of  her  ablest  general.  If  profit  was 
derived  by  any  state  from  the  war,  it  was  by  Athens,  who  re- 
covered her  maritime  superiority  (since  the  attempt  of  Epami- 
nondas  to  establish  a  rival  navy  proved  a  failure),  reconsti- 
tuted her  old  confederacy,  and  even,  by  the  occupation  of 
Samos  and  the  Chersonese,  began  to  restore  her  empire.  In 
Macedonia  her  influence  to  some  extent  balanced  that  of 

The  general  exhaustion  naturally  led  to  a  peace,  which  was 
made  on  the  principle  of  leaving  things  as  they  were.  The 
independence  of  Messene  and  the  unification  of  Arcadia  were 
expressly  recognized,  while  the  headship  of  Thebes  and  Athens 
over  their  respective  confederacies  was  tacitly  sanctioned. 
Sparta  alone  declined  to  sign  the  terms,  since  she  would  on  no 
account  forego  her  right  to  reconquer  Messenia.  She  had  no 
intention,  however,  of  making  any  immediate  appeal  to  arms, 
and  allowed  her  king,  Agesilaiis,  to  quit  Sparta  and  take  ser- 
vice under  the  native  monarch  of  Egypt. 

The  peace  of  B.C.  362  was  not  disturbed  on  the  continent  o{ 
Greece  till  after  the  lapse  of  six  years.  Meanwhile,  however, 
hostilities  continued  at  sea  between  Alexander  of  Pherae  and 
Athens,  and,  in  the  continental  districts  beyond  the  limits  of 
Greece  Proper,  between  Athens  on  the  one  hand,  and  Am- 
phipolis,  Pediccas  of  Macedon,  and  the  Thracian  princes,  Cotys 
and  his  son  Cersobleptes,  on  the  other.  Athens  was  intent  on 
recovering  her  old  dominion  in  these  parts,  while  the  Mace- 
donian and  Thracian  kings  were  naturally  jealous  of  her  grow- 
ing power.  Nothing,  however,  as  yet  showed  that  any  im- 
portant consequences  would  arise  out  of  these  petty  struggles. 
Macedonia  was  still  one  of  the  weakest  of  the  states  which  bor- 
dered on  Greece ;  and  even  when,  on  the  death  of  Perdiccas, 
B.C.  359,  his  brother,  Philip,  who  had  escaped  from  Thebes, 



mounted  the  throne,  it  was  impossible  for  the  most  sagacious 
intellect  to  foresee  danger  to  Greece  from  this  quarter. 

The  year  B.C.  358  was  the  culminating  point  of  the  second 
period  of  Athenian  prosperity.  Athens  had  once  more  made 
herself  mistress  of  the  Chersonese ;  she  had  recovered  Eubcea, 
which  had  recently  attached  itself  to  Thebes ;  and  she  had  ob- 
tained from  Philip  the  acknowledgment  of  her  right  to  Am- 
phipolis,  when  the  revolt  of  a  considerable  number  of  her  more 
distant  allies  engaged  her  in  the  "  Social  War,"  the  results  of 
which  injured  her  greatly.  The  war  cost  her  the  services  of 
her  three  best  generals,  Chabrias,  Timotheus,  and  Iphicrates ; 
exhausted  her  treasury,  and  permanently  diminished  her  re- 
sources. It  likewise  greatly  tarnished  her  half-recovered 

The  period  of  the  "  Social  War  "  was  also  disastrous  for 
Athens  in  another  respect.  So  completely  did  the  struggle 
with  her  allies  occupy  her  attention,  so  incapable  was  she  at 
this  period  of  carrying  on  more  than  one  war  at  a  time,  that 
she  allowed  Philip  to  absorb,  one  after  another,  Amphipolis, 
Pydna,  Potidaea,  and  Methone,  and  thus  to  sweep  her  from  the 
Thermaic  Gulf,  almost  without  offering  resistance.  At  first, 
indeed,  she  was  cajoled  by  the  crafty  monarch  ;  but,  even  when 
the  mask  was  thrown  oflF,  she  made  no  adequate  effort,  but 
patiently  allowed  the  establishment  of  Macedonian  ascendency 
over  the  entire  region  extending  from  the  Peneus  to  the  Nes- 

Before  the  "  Social  War  "  had  come  to  an  end,  another  ex- 
hausting struggle — fatal  to  Greece  in  its  consequences — was 
begun  in  the  central  region  of  Hellas,  through  the  vindictive- 
ness  of  Thebes.  Down  to  the  battle  of  Leuctra,  Phocis  had 
fought  on  the  Spartan  side,  and  had  thus  provoked  the  enmity 
of  Thebes,  who  now  resolved  on  her  destruction.  The  Am- 
phictyonic  assembly  suffered  itself  to  be  made  the  tool  of  the 
oppressors;  and  by  condemning  Phocis  to  a  fine  which  she 
could  not  possibly  pay,  compelled  her  to  fight  for  her  exist- 
ence. A  war  followed,  in  which  Phocis,  by  the  seizure  and  ex- 
penditure of  the  Delphic  treasures,  and  the  assistance,  in  some 
important  conjuncture,  of  Achaea,  Athens,  and  Sparta,  main- 
tained herself  for  eleven  years  against  Thebes  and  her  allies. 


At  last  Thebes,  blinded  by  her  passionate  hatred,  called  in 
Philip  to  her  assistance,  and  thus  purchased  the  destruction  of 
her  enemy  at  a  cost  which  involved  her  own  ruin  and  that  of 
Greece  generally. 

The  ruin  of  Greece  was  now  rapidly  consummated.  Within 
six  years  of  the  submission  and  punishment  of  Phocis,  Philip 
openly  declared  war  against  Athens,  the  only  power  in  Greece 
capable  of  offering  him  any  important  opposition.  His  efforts 
at  first  were  directed  towards  obtaining  the  command  of  the 
Bosphorus  and  Hellespont ;  but  the  second  "  Sacred  War  " 
gave  him  a  pretext  for  marching  his  forces  through  Ther- 
moplyae  into  Central  Greece ;  and  though  Thebes  and  Athens 
joined  to  oppose  him,  the  signal  victory  of  Chaeroneia  (B.C. 
338)  laid  Greece  prostrate  at  his  feet.  All  the  states,  excepting 
Sparta,  at  once  acknowledged  his  supremacy;  and,  to  mark 
distinctly  the  extinction  of  independent  Hellas,  and  its  absorp- 
tion into  the  Macedonian  monarchy,  Philip  was,  in  B.C.  337, 
formally  appointed  generalissimo  of  united  Greece  against  the 
Persians.  His  assassination  in  the  next  year  excited  hopes, 
but  produced  no  real  change.  The  aspirations  of  the  patriotic 
party  in  Greece  after  freedom  were  quenched  in  the  blood 
which  deluged  revolted  Thebes,  B.C.  335 ;  and  assembled 
Greece  at  Corinth  once  more  admitted  the  headship  of  Mace- 
don,  and  conferred  on  the  youthful  Alexander  the  dignity 
previously  granted  to  his  father. 





Macedonia  Proper  was  the  country  lying  immediately  to  the 
north  of  Thessaly,  between  Mount  Scardus  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  maritime  plain  of  the  Pierians  and  Bottiaeans  (Thra- 
cians)  on  the  other.  It  was  bounded  towards  the  north  by  Pae- 
onia,  or  the  country  of  the  Paeonians,  from  which  it  was  sep- 
arated by  an  irregular  line,  running  probably  a  little  north  of 
the  41st  parallel.  Its  greatest  length  from  north  to  south  was 
about  ninety  miles,  while  its  width  from  east  to  west  may  have 
averaged  seventy  miles.  Its  area  was  probably  not  much  short 
of  6000  square  miles,  or  about  half  that  of  Belgium. 

The  character  of  the  tract  comprised  within  these  limits  was 
multiform,  but  for  the  most  part  fertile.  High  mountain- 
chains,  capped  with  snow  during  the  gfreater  part  of  the  year, 
and  very  varied  in  the  directions  that  they  take,  divide  the 
territory  into  a  number  of  distinct  basins.  Some  of  these  have 
a  lake  in  the  centre,  into  which  all  the  superfluous  moisture 
drains ;  others  are  watered  by  rivers,  which,  with  one  excep- 
tion, flow  eastward  to  the  Mgean.  In  both  cases  the  basins 
are  of  large  extent,  oflfering  to  the  eye  the  appearance  of  a  suc- 
cession of  plains.  The  more  elevated  regions  are  for  the  most 
part  richly  wooded,  and  abound  with  sparkling  rivulets,  deep 
gorges,  and  frequent  waterfalls;  but  in  places  this  character 
gives  way  to  one  of  dulness  and  monotony,  the  traveller  pass- 
ing for  miles  over  a  succession  of  bleak  downs  and  bare  hill 
sides,  stony  and  shrubless. 

The  principal  Rivers  of  the  region  were  the  Lydias,  or  Lu- 
dias,  now  the  Karasmak,  and  the  Haliacmon,  now  the  Vistritza. 



Besides  these,  there  was  a  third  stream  of  some  importance, 
the  Erigon,  a  tributary  of  the  Axius.  The  chief  Lakes  were 
those  of  Castoria,  on  a  tributary  of  the  Hahacmon,  of  Begor- 
ritis  (Ostrovo  ?)  in  the  country  of  the  Eordaeans,  and  the  Lyd- 
ias  Palus,  near  Pella. 

Macedonia  was  divided  into  "  Upper  "  and  "  Lower."  Up- 
per Macedonia  comprised  the  whole  of  the  broad  mountainous 
tract  which  lay  between  Scardus  and  Bermius,  while  Lower 
Macedonia  was  the  comparatively  narrow  strip  along  the  east- 
ern flank  and  at  the  foot  of  Bermius,  between  that  range  and 
the  tracts  known  as  Pieria  and  Bottisea.  Upper  Macedonia 
was  divided  into  a  number  of  districts,  which  for  the  most 
part  took  their  names  from  the  tribes  inhabiting  them.  The 
principal  were,  to  the  north,  Pelagonia  and  Lyncestis,  on  the 
river  Erigon ;  to  the  west,  Orestis  and  Elymeia,  on  the  upper 
Haliacmon ;  and  in  the  centre,  Eordaea,  about  Lake  Begorritis. 


From  the  Commencement  of  the  Monarchy  to  the  Death  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  about  B.C.  700  to  B.C.  323.* 

According  to  the  tradition  generally  accepted  by  the  Greeks, 
the  Macedonian  kingdom,  which  under  Philip  and  Alexander 
attained  to  such  extraordinary  greatness,  was  founded  by  Hel- 
lenic emigrants  from  Argos.     The  Macedonians  themselves 

*  Sources.  For  the  first  two  centuries  Macedonian  history  is  almost 
a  blank,  nothing  but  a  few  names  and  some  mythic  tales  being  preserved 
to  us  in  Herodotus.  That  writer  is  the  best  authority  for  the  reigns 
of  Amyntas  I.  and  his  son  Alexander;  but  he  must  be  supplemented 
from  Thucydides  (ii.  99)  and  Justin.  Thucydides  is  the  chief  authority 
for  the  reign  of  Perdiccas.  For  the  period  from  Archelaus  to  Alexander 
we  depend  mainly  on  Justin  and  Diodorus.  Philip's  history,  however, 
may  be  copiously  illustrated  from  the  Attic  orators,  especially  ^schines 
and  Demosthenes;  but  these  partisan  writers  must  not  be  trusted  im- 
plicitly. On  the  history  of  Alexander  the  most  trustworthy  of  the 
ancient  authorities  is  Arrian  ("  Expeditio  Alexandri "),  who  followed 
contemporary  writers,  especially  Aristobulus  and  Ptolemy  Lagi.  Some 
interesting  particulars  are  also  furnished  by  Plutarch  ("  Vit.  Alex."), 


were  not  Hellenes ;  they  belonged  to  the  barbaric  races,  not 
greatly  diflfering  from  the  Greeks  in  ethnic  type,  but  far  behind 
them  in  civilization,  which  bordered  Hellas  upon  the  north. 
They  were  a  distinct  race,  not  Pseonian,  not  lUyrian,  not  Thra- 
cian ;  but,  of  the  three,  their  connection  was  closest  with  the 
Illyrians.  The  Argive  colony,  received  hospitably,  gradually 
acquired  power  in  the  region  about  Mount  Bermius ;  and  Per- 
diccas,  one  of  the  original  emigrants,  was  (according  to  Herod- 
otus) acknowledged  as  king.  (Other  writers  mentioned  three 
kings  anterior  to  Perdiccas,  whose  joint  reigns  covered  the 
space  of  about  a  century.)  The  period  which  follows  is  one 
of  great  obscurity,  little  being  known  of  it  but  the  names  of 
the  kings. 

With  Amyntas  I.,  who  was  contemporary  with  Darius  Hys- 
taspis,  light  dawns  upon  Macedonian  history.  We  find  that 
by  this  time  the  Macedonian  monarchs  of  this  line  had  made 
themselves  masters  of  Pieria  and  Bottiaea,  had  crossed  the 
Axius  and  conquered  Mygdonia  and  Anthemus,  had  dislodged 
the  original  Eordi  from  Eordia  and  themselves  occupied  it, 
and  had  dealt  similarly  with  the  Almopes  in  Alniopia,  on  the 
Rhaedias.  But  the  advance  of  the  Persians  into  Europe  gave 
a  sudden  check  to  this  period  of  prosperity.  After  a  submis- 
sion which  was  more  nominal  than  real,  in  B.C.  507,  the  Mace- 
donians, in  B.C.  492,  became  Persian  subjects,  retaining,  how- 
ever, their  own  kings,  who  accepted  the  position  of  tributaries. 
Amyntas  I.,  who  appears  to  have  died  about  B.C.  498,  was 
succeeded  by  his  son,  Alexander  I.,  king  at  the  time  of  the 
great  invasion  of  Xerxes,  who  played  no  unimportant  part  in 
the  expedition,  B.C.  480  to  470. 

The  repulse  of  the  Persians  set  Macedonia  free;  and  the 
career  of  conquest  appears  to  have  been  at  once  resumed. 
Crestonaea  and  Bisaltia  were  reduced,  and  the  Macedonian 
dominion  pushed  eastward  almost  to  the  Strymon.    The  au- 

Nearchus  ("Periplus"),  and  Diodorus  (book  xvii.).  The  biography 
of  Q.  Curtius  is  a  rhetorical  cxercitation,  on  which  it  is  impossible  to 
place  any  dependence.  (A  good  edition  of  the  '*  Periplus  of  Ncarchus," 
the  only  writing  of  a  companion  of  Alexander  that  has  come  down  to 
us.  is  contained  in  C.  Miiller's  "  Gcographi  Graeci  Minores."  Paris, 
185s;  2  vols.,  tall  8vo.) 


thority  of  the  monarchs  of  Pella  was  likewise  extended  over 
most  of  the  inland  Macedonian  tribes,  as  the  Lyncestae,  the 
Eleimiots,  and  others,  who  however  retained  their  own  kings. 

But  Macedonia  was  about  this  time  herself  exposed  to 
attacks  from  two  unquiet  neighbors.  The  maritime  con- 
federacy of  Athens,  which  gave  her  a  paramount  authority 
over  the  Greek  cities  in  Chalcidice  and  even  over  Me- 
thone  in  Pieria,  brought  the  Athenians  into  the  near  neigh- 
borhood of  Macedon,  and  necessitated  relations  between  the 
two  powers,  which  were  at  first  friendly,  but  which  grew  to  be 
hostile  when  Athens  by  her  colony  at  AmphipoHs  put  a  check 
to  the  further  progress  of  Macedon  in  that  direction ;  and  were 
still  more  embittered  by  the  encouragement  which  Athens  gave 
to  Macedonian  chiefs  who  rebelled  against  their  sovereign. 
About  the  same  time,  a  powerful  Thracian  kingdom  was  formed 
under  Sitalces,  B.C.  440  to  420,  which  threatened  destruction 
to  the  far  smaller  Macedonian  state  with  which  it  was  conter- 
minous. Macedonia,  however,  under  the  adroit  Perdiccas,  es- 
caped both  dangers;  and,  on  the  whole,  increased  in  pros- 

The  reign  of  Archelaiis,  the  bastard  son  of  Perdiccas  II., 
though  short,  was  very  important  for  Macedon,  since  this 
prince  laid  the  foundation  of  her  military  greatness  by  the  at- 
tention which  he  paid  to  the  army,  while  at  the  same  time  he 
strengthened  and  improved  the  country  by  the  construction 
of  highways  and  of  forts.  He  was  also  the  first  of  the  Mace- 
donian princes  who  endeavored  to  encourage  among  his  people 
a  taste  for  Greek  literature.  Euripides  the  tragedian  was  wel- 
comed to  his  court,  as  also  was  Plato  the  philosopher,  and  per- 
haps Hellanicus  the  historian.  He  engaged  in  wars  with  some 
of  the  Macedonian  princes,  as  particularly  with  Arrhibaeus; 
but  he  was  relieved  from  all  hostile  collision  with  Athens  by 
the  Sicilian  disaster.  The  character  of  Archelaiis  was  sanguin- 
ary and  treacherous ;  in  his  habits  he  was  licentious.  After 
reigning  fourteen  years,  he  was  assassinated  by  the  victims 
of  his  lust,  B.C.  399. 

The  murder  of  Archelaiis  introduced  a  period  of  disturbance, 
both  internal  and  external,  which  lasted  till  the  accession  of 
Philip,  B.C.  359.    During  this  interval  the  Macedonian  court 


was  a  constant  scene  of  plots  and  assassinations.  The  direct 
line  of  succession  having  failed,  numerous  pretenders  to  the 
crown  sprang  up,  who  at  different  times  found  supporters  in 
the  Illyrians,  the  Lacedaemonians,  the  Thebans,  and  the  Athe- 
nians. Civil  wars  were  almost  perpetual.  Kings  were  driven 
from  their  thrones  and  recovered  them.  There  were  at  least 
two  regencies.  So  violent  were  the  commotions  that  it  seemed 
doubtful  whether  the  kingdom  could  long  continue  to  maintain 
its  existence ;  and,  if  the  Olynthian  league  had  been  allowed 
to  constitute  itself  without  interference,  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
Macedon  would  have  been  absorbed,  either  by  that  confeder- 
acy or  by  the  Illyrians. 

The  reig^  of  Philip  is  the  turning-point  in  Macedonian  his- 
tory. Hitherto,  if  we  except  Archelaiis,  Macedonia  had  not 
possessed  a  single  king  whose  abilities  exceeded  the  common 
average,  or  whose  aims  had  about  them  any  thing  of  gp-andeur. 
Notwithstanding  their  asserted  and  even  admitted  Hellenism, 
the  "  barbarian  "  character  of  their  training  and  associations 
had  its  effect  on  the  whole  line  of  sovereigns;  and  their 
highest  qualities  were  the  rude  valor  and  the  sagacity  border- 
ing upon  cunning  which  are  seldom  wanting  in  savages.  But 
Philip  was  a  monarch  of  a  different  stamp.  In  natural  ability 
he  was  at  least  the  equal  of  any  of  his  Greek  contemporaries ; 
while  the  circumstances  under  which  he  grew  to  manhood 
were  peculiarly  favorable  to  the  development  of  his  talents. 
At  the  impressible  age  of  fifteen,  he  was  sent  as  a  hostage  to 
Thebes,  where  he  resided  for  the  greater  part  of  three  years 
(B.C.  368  to  365),  while  that  state  was  at  the  height  of  its  pros- 
perity under  Pelopidas  and  Epaminondas.  He  was  thus 
brought  into  contact  with  those  great  men,  was  led  to  study 
their  system,  and  emulate  their  actions.  He  learnt  the  great 
importance  of  military  training,  and  the  value  of  inventiveness 
to  those  who  wish  to  succeed  in  war ;  he  also  acquired  a  facility 
of  expressing  himself  in  Greek,  which  was  uncommon  in  a 

The  situation  of  Philip  at  his  accession  was  one  of  extreme 
embarrassment  and  difficulty.  Besides  Amyntas,  his  nephew, 
for  whom  he  at  first  professed  to  be  regent,  there  were  at  least 
five  pretenders  to  the  throne,  two  of  whom,  Pausanias  and 


Argaeus,  were  supported  by  the  arms  of  foreigners.  The  Illyr- 
ians,  moreover,  had  recently  gained  a  great  victory  over  Per- 
diccas,  and,  flushed  with  success,  had  advanced  into  Macedonia 
and  occupied  most  of  the  western  provinces.  Pseonia  on  the 
north,  and  Thrace  upon  the  east,  were  unquiet  neighbors, 
whose  hostility  might  be  counted  on  whenever  other  perils 
threatened.  Within  two  years,  however,  Philip  had  repressed 
or  overthrown  all  these  enemies,  and  found  himself  free  to 
commence  those  wars  of  aggression  by  which  he  converted  the 
monarchy  of  Macedon  into  an  empire. 

Hitherto  it  had  been  the  policy  of  Philip  to  profess  himself 
a  friend  of  the  Athenians.  Now,  however,  that  his  hands  were 
free,  it  was  his  first  object  to  disembarrass  himself  of  these 
near  neighbors,  who  blocked  up  his  coast-line,  watched  his 
movements,  and  might  seriously  interfere  with  the  execution 
of  his  projects.  Accordingly,  towards  the  close  of  B.C.  358, 
when  Athens  was  already  engaged  in  the  "  Social  War,"  he 
suddenly  laid  siege  to  Amphipolis.  Having  taken  the  town, 
while  he  amused  Athens  with  promises,  he  proceeded  to  attack 
and  capture  Pydna  and  Potidaea,  actual  Athenian  possessions, 
making  over  the  latter  to  Olynthus,  to  foment  jealousy  between 
her  and  Athens.  He  then  conquered  the  entire  coast  district 
between  the  Strymon  and  the  Nestus,  thus  becoming  master 
of  the  important  Thracian  gold-mines,  from  which  he  shortly 
derived  an  annual  revenue  of  a  thousand  talents ! 

The  year  after  these  conquests  we  find  Philip  in  Thessaly, 
where  he  interferes  to  protect  the  Aleuadae  of  Larissa  against 
the  tyrants  of  Pherse.  The  tyrants  call  in  the  aid  of  the  Pho- 
cians,  then  at  the  zenith  of  their  power,  and  Philip  suffers 
certain  reverses ;  but  a  few  years  later  he  is  completely  vic- 
torious, defeats  and  kills  Onomarchus,  and  brings  under  his 
dominion  the  whole  of  Thessaly,  together  with  Magnesia  and 
Achsea  Phthiotis.  At  the  same  time,  he  conquers  Methone, 
the  last  Athenian  possession  on  the  coast  of  Macedon,  attacks 
Maroneia,  and  threatens  the  Chersonese.  Athens,  the  sole 
power  which  could  effectually  have  checked  these  successes, 
made  only  slight  and  feeble  efforts  to  prevent  them.  Already 
Philip  had  found  the  advantage  of  having  friends  among  the 
Attic  orators ;  and  their  labors,  backed  by  the  selfish  indolence 


which  now  characterized  the  Athenians,  producea  an  inaction, 
which  had  the  most  fatal  consequences. 

The  victory  of  Phihp  over  Onomarchus  roused  Athens  to 
exertion.  Advancing  to  Thermopylae,  Philip  found  the  pass 
already  occupied  by  an  Athenian  army,  and  did  not  venture 
to  attack  it.  Greece  was  saved  for  the  time;  but  six  years 
later  the  folly  of  the  Thebans,  and  the  fears  of  the  Athenians, 
who  were  driven  to  despair  by  the  ill  success  of  the  Olynthian 
and  Euboic  wars,  admitted  the  Macedonian  conqueror  within 
the  barrier.  Accepted  as  head  of  the  league  against  the  impi- 
ous Phocians,  Philip  in  a  few  weeks  brought  the  "  Sacred 
War  "  to  an  end,  obtaining  as  his  reward  the  seat  in  the  Am- 
phictyonic  Council  of  which  the  Phocians  were  deprived,  and 
thus  acquiring  a  sort  of  right  to  intermeddle  as  much  as  he 
liked  in  the  affairs  of  Central  and  even  Southern  Hellas. 

The  main  causes  of  Philip's  wonderful  success  were  twofold : 
— Bettering  the  lessons  taught  him  by  his  model  in  the  art 
of  war,  Epaminondas,  he  had  armed,  equipped,  and  trained 
the  Macedonian  forces  till  they  were  decidedly  superior  to  the 
troops  of  any  state  in  Greece.  The  Macedonian  phalanx,  in- 
vincible until  it  came  to  be  opposed  to  the  Romans,  was  his 
conception  and  his  work.  Nor  was  he  content  with  excellence 
in  one  arm  of  the  service.  On  every  branch  he  bestowed  equal 
care  and  thought.  Each  was  brought  into  a  state  nearly  ap- 
proaching perfection.  His  cavalry,  heavy  and  light,  his  pel- 
tasts,  archers,  slingers,  darters,  were  all  the  best  of  their  kind ; 
his  artillery  was  numerous  and  eflfective;  his  commissariat 
service  was  well  arranged.  At  the  same  time,  he  was  a  master 
of  finesse.  Taking  advantage  of  the  divided  condition  of 
Greece,  and  of  the  general  prevalence  of  corruption  among 
the  citizens  of  almost  every  community,  he  played  off  state 
against  state  and  politician  against  politician.  Masking  his 
purposes  up  to  the  last  moment,  promising,  cajoling,  bribing, 
intimidating,  protesting,  he  advanced  his  interests  even  more 
by  diplomacy  than  by  force,  having  an  infinite  fund  of  artifice 
from  which  to  draw,  and  scarcely  ever  recurring  to  means 
which  he  had  used  previously, 

Philip  had  made  peace  with  Athens  in  order  to  lay  hold  on 
Thermopylae — a  hold  which  he  never  afterwards  relaxed.    But 


it  was  far  from  his  intention  to  maintain  the  peace  an  hour 
longer  than  suited  his  purpose.  Having  once  more  chastised 
the  lUyrian  and  Pseonian  tribes,  he  proceeded  to  invade  East- 
ern Thrace,  and  to  threaten  the  Athenian  possessions  in  that 
quarter.  At  the  same  time,  he  aimed  at  getting  into  his  hands 
the  command  of  the  Bosphorus,  which  would  have  enabled  him 
to  starve  Greece  into  submission  by  stopping  the  importation 
of  corn.  Here,  however,  Persia  (which  had  at  last  come  to  feel 
alarm  at  his  progress)  combined  with  Athens  to  resist  him. 
Perinthus  and  Byzantium  were  saved,  and  the  ambition  of 
Philip  was  for  the  time  thwarted. 

But  the  indefatigable  warrior,  balked  of  his  prey,  and  obliged 
to  wait  till  Grecian  affairs  should  take  a  turn  more  favorable 
to  him,  marched  suddenly  northward  and  engaged  in  a  cam- 
paign on  the  Lower  Danube  against  a  Scythian  prince  who 
held  the  tract  now  known  as  Bulgaria.  Victorious  here,  he 
recrossed  the  Balkan  with  a  large  body  of  captives,  when  he 
was  set  upon  by  the  Triballi  (Thracians),  defeated,  and  wound- 
ed in  the  thigh,  B.C.  339.  The  wound  necessitated  a  short 
period  of  inaction ;  but  while  the  arch-plotter  rested,  his  agents 
were  busily  at  work,  and  the  year  of  the  Triballian  defeat  saw 
the  fatal  step  taken,  which  was  once  more  to  bring  a  Mace- 
donian army  into  the  heart  of  Greece,  and  to  destroy  the  last 
remaining  chance  of  the  cause  of  Hellenic  freedom. 

Appointed  by  the  Amphictyons  as  their  leader  in  a  new 
"  Sacred  War,"  Philip  once  more  passed  Thermopylae  and 
entered  Phocis.  But  he  soon  showed  that  he  came  on  no 
trivial  or  temporary  errand.  The  occupation  of  Nicsea,  Cytini- 
um,  and  more  especially  of  Elateia,  betrayed  his  intention  of 
henceforth  holding  possession  of  Central  Greece,  and  roused 
the  two  principal  powers  of  the  region  to  a  last  desperate  ef- 
fort. Thebes  and  Athens  met  him  at  Chseroneia  in  full  force, 
with  contingents  from  Corinth,  Phocis,  and  Achaea.  But  the 
Macedonian  phalanx  was  irresistible ;  and  the  complete  defeat 
of  the  allies  laid  Greece  at  Philip's  feet.  The  Congress  of  Cor- 
inth (B.C.  337),  attended  by  all  the  states  except  Sparta,  which 
proudly  stood  aloof,  accepted  the  headship  of  Macedon ;  and 
the  cities  generally  undertook  to  supply  contingents  to  the 
force  which  he  designed  to  lead  against  Persia. 


This  design,  however,  was  not  executed.  Great  prepara- 
tions were  made  in  the  course  of  B.C.  337 ;  and  early  in  B.C. 
336  the  vanguard  of  the  Macedonian  army  was  sent  across 
into  Asia.  But,  a  few  months  later,  the  sword  of  Pausanias 
terminated  the  career  of  the  Macedonian  monarch,  who  fell 
a  victim,  in  part  to  his  unwillingness,  or  his  inability  to  execute 
justice  upon  powerful  offenders,  in  part  to  the  quarrels  and 
dissensions  in  his  own  family.  Olympias  certainly,  Alexander 
probably,  connived  at  the  assassination  of  Philip,  whose  re- 
moval was  necessary  to  their  own  safety.  He  died  at  the  age 
of  forty-seven,  after  a  reig^  of  twenty-three  years. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  what  exactly  was  the  government  of 
Macedonia  under  this  prince.  Practically,  the  monarch  must 
have  been  nearly  absolute ;  but  it  would  appear  that,  theoret- 
ically, he  was  bound  to  govern  according  to  certain  long- 
established  laws  and  customs;  and  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  he  would  have  dared  at  any  time  to  transgress,  fla- 
grantly and  openly,  any  such  law  or  usage.  The  Macedonian 
nobles  were  turbulent  and  free  of  speech.  If  accused  of  con- 
spiracy or  other  crime,  they  were  entitled  to  be  tried  before 
the  public  assembly.  Their  power  must  certainly  have  been 
to  some  extent  a  check  upon  the  monarch.  And  after  the  for- 
mation of  a  great  standing  army,  it  became  necessary  for  the 
monarch  to  consult  the  feelings  and  conform  his  acts  to  the 
wishes  of  the  soldiers.  But  there  seems  to  have  been  no  such 
regular  machinery  for  checking  and  controlling  the  royal  au- 
thority as  is  implied  in  constitutional  government. 

The  reign  of  Alexander  the  Great  has  in  the  history  of  the 
world  much  the  same  importance  which  that  of  his  father  has 
in  the  history  of  Macedonia  and  of  Greece.  Alexander  revo- 
lutionized the  East,  or,  at  any  rate,  so  much  of  it  as  was  con- 
nected with  the  West  by  intercourse  or  reciprocal  influence. 
The  results  of  a  conquest  effected  in  ten  years  continued  for 
as  many  centuries,  and  remain  in  some  respects  to  the  present 
day.  The  Hellenization  of  Western  Asia  and  North-eastern 
Africa,  which  dates  from  Alexander's  successes,  is  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  facts  in  the  history  of  the  human  race,  and 
one  of  those  most  pregnant  with  important  consequences.  It 
is  as  absurd  to  deny  to  the  author  of  such  a  revolution  the 


possession  of  extraordinary  genius  as  to  suppose  that  the  Ihad 
could  have  been  written  by  a  man  of  no  particular  ability. 

The  situation  of  Alexander,  on  his  accession,  was  extremely 
critical;  and  it  depended  wholly  on  his  own  energy  and  force 
of  character  whether  he  would  retain  his  father's  power  or  lose 
it.  His  position  was  far  from  assured  at  home,  where  he  had 
many  rivals ;  and  among  the  conquered  nations  there  was  a 
general  inclination  to  test  the  qualities  of  the  new  and  young 
prince  by  the  assertion  of  independence.  But  Alexander  was 
equal  to  the  occasion.  Seizing  the  throne  without  a  moment's 
hesitation,  he  executed  or  drove  out  his  rivals.  Forestalling 
any  open  hostility  on  the  part  of  the  Greeks,  he  marched  hast- 
ily, at  the  head  of  a  large  army,  through  Thessaly,  Phocis,  and 
Boeotia,  to  Corinth,  and  there  required,  and  obtained,  from  the 
deputies  whom  he  had  convened  to  meet  him,  the  same  "  hege- 
mony," or  leadership,  which  had  been  granted  to  his  father. 
Sparta  alone,  as  she  had  done  before,  stood  aloof.  From  Cor- 
inth, Alexander  retraced  his  steps  to  Macedon,  and  thence  pro- 
ceeded to  chastise  his  enemies  in  the  North  and  West,  invading 
Thrace,  defeating  the  Triballi  and  the  Getae,  and  even  crossing 
the  Danube;  after  which  he  turned  southward,  and  attacked 
and  defeated  the  Illyrians  under  Clitus  and  Glaucias. 

Meanwhile,  in  Greece,  a  false  report  of  Alexander's  death 
induced  Thebes  to  raise  the  standard  of  revolt.  A  general  in- 
surrection might  have  followed  but  for  the  promptness  and 
celerity  of  the  young  monarch.  Marching  straight  from  Illyria 
southward,  he  appeared  suddenly  in  Boeotia,  stormed  and  took 
Thebes,  and,  after  a  wholesale  massacre,  punished  the  survivors 
by  completely  destroying  their  city  and  selling  them  all  as 
slaves.  This  signal  vengeance  had  the  effect  intended.  All 
Greece  was  terror-struck ;  and  Alexander  could  feel  that  he 
might  commence  his  Asiatic  enterprise  in  tolerable  security. 
Greece  was  now  not  likely  to  rebel,  unless  he  suffered  some 
considerable  reverse. 

In  the  spring  of  B.C.  334  Alexander  passed  the  Hellespont 
with  an  army  numbering  about  35,000  men.  The  usual  re- 
missness of  the  Persians  allowed  him  to  cross  without  opposi- 
tion. A  plan  of  operations,  suggested  by  Memnon  the  Rhod- 
ian,  which  consisted  in  avoiding  an  engagement  in  Asia  Minor, 



and  carrying  the  war  into  Macedonia  by  means  of  the  over- 
whelming Persian  fleet,  was  rejected,  and  battle  was  given  to 
Alexander,  on  the  Granicus,  by  a  force  only  a  little  superior 
to  his  own.  The  victory  of  the  invader  placed  Asia  Minor 
at  his  mercy,  and  Alexander  with  his  usual  celerity  proceeded 
to  overrun  it.  Still,  he  seems  to  have  been  unwilling  to  remove 
his  army  very  far  from  the  ^gean  coast,  so  long  as  Memnon 
was  alive.  But  the  death  of  that  able  commander,  in  the  spring 
of  B.C.  333,  left  him  free  to  act ;  and  he  at  once  took  the  road 
which  led  to  the  heart  of  the  Persian  empire. 

The  conflict  at  Issus  between  Alexander  and  Darius  himself 
was  brought  on  under  circumstances  peculiarly  favorable  to 
the  Macedonian  monarch.  Darius  had  intended  to  fight  in  the 
plain  of  Antioch,  where  his  vast  army  would  have  had  room 
to  act.  But,  as  Alexander  did  not  come  to  meet  him,  he  g^rew 
impatient,  and  advanced  into  the  defiles  which  lie  between 
Syria  and  Cilicia.  The  armies  met,  almost  without  warning, 
in  a  position  where  numbers  gave  no  advantage.  Under  such 
circumstances  the  defeat  of  the  Persians  was  a  matter  of  course. 
Alexander  deserves  less  credit  for  the  victory  of  Issus  than  for 
the  use  he  made  of  it.  It  was  a  wise  and  farseeing  policy  which 
disdained  the  simple  plan  of  pressing  forward  on  a  defeated  foe, 
and  preferred  to  let  him  escape  and  reorganize  his  forces,  while 
the  victory  was  utilized  in  another  way.  Once  possessed  of  the 
command  of  the  sea,  Alexander  would  be  completely  secure  at 
home.  He  therefore  proceeded  from  Issus  against  Tyre,  Gaza, 
and  Egypt.  Twenty  months  sufficed  for  the  reduction  of  these 
places.  Having  possessed  himself  of  all  the  maritime  provinces 
of  Persia,  Alexander,  in  B.C.  331,  proceeded  to  seek  his  enemy 
in  the  heart  of  his  empire. 

In  the  final  conflict,  near  Arbela,  the  relative  strength  of  the 
two  contending  parties  was  fairly  tried.  Darius  had  collected 
the  full  force  of  his  empire,  had  selected  and  prepared  his 
ground,  and  had  even  obtained  the  aid  of  allies.  His  defeat 
was  owing,  in  part,  to  the  intrinsic  superiority  of  the  European 
over  the  Asiatic  soldier ;  in  part,  and  in  great  part,  to  the  con- 
summate ability  of  the  Macedonian  commander.  The  conflict 
was  absolutely  decisive,  for  it  was  impossible  that  any  battle 
should  be  fought  under  conditions  more  favorable  to  Persia. 


Accordingly,  the  three  capitals,  Babylon,  Susa,  and  Persep- 
olis,  surrendered,  almost  without  resistance;  and  the  Persian 
monarch  became  a  fugitive,  and  was  ere  long  murdered  by  his 

The  most  remarkable  part  of  Alexander's  career  now  com- 
mences. An  ordinary  conqueror  would  have  been  satisfied 
with  the  submission  of  the  great  capitals,  and  would  have 
awaited,  in  the  luxurious  abodes  which  they  offered,  the  adhe- 
sion of  the  more  distant  provinces.  But  for  Alexander  rest 
possessed  no  attractions.  So  long  as  there  were  lands  or  men 
to  conquer,  it  was  his  delight  to  subjugate  them.  The  pursuit 
of  Darius  and  then  of  Bessus,  drew  him  on  to  the  north-eastern 
corner  of  the  Persian  Empire,  whence  the  way  was  open  into 
a  new  world,  generally  believed  to  be  one  of  immense  wealth. 
From  Bactria  and  Sogdiana,  Alexander  proceeded  through 
Afghanistan  to  India,  which  he  entered  on  the  side  whence 
alone  India  is  accessible  by  land,  viz.,  the  north-west.  At  first 
he  warred  with  the  princes  who  held  their  governments  as 
dependencies  of  Persia;  but,  when  these  had  submitted,  he 
desired  still  to  press  eastward,  and  complete  the  subjugation 
of  the  continent,  which  was  believed  to  terminate  at  no  great 
distance.  The  refusal  of  his  soldiers  to  proceed  stopped  him 
at  the  Sutlej,  and  forced  him  to  relinquish  his  designs,  .and 
to  bend  his  steps  homeward. 

It  was  characteristic  of  Alexander,  that,  even  when  compelled 
to  desist  from  a  forward  movement,  he  did  not  retrace  his  steps, 
but  returned  to  the  Persian  capital  by  an  entirely  new  route. 
Following  the  course  of  the  Indus  in  ships  built  for  the  purpose, 
while  his  army  marched  along  the  banks,  he  conquered  the 
valley  as  he  descended,  and,  having  reached  the  ocean,  pro- 
ceeded with  the  bulk  of  his  troops  westward  through  Gedrosia 
(Beloochistan)  and  Carmania  into  Persia.  Meanwhile  his  ad- 
miral, Nearchus,  sailed  from  the  Indus  to  the  Euphrates,  thus 
reopening  a  line  of  communication  which  had  probably  been 
little  used  since  the  time  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  Alexander,  in 
his  march,  experienced  terrible  difficulties ;  and  the  losses  in- 
curred in  the  Gedrosian  desert  exceeded  those  of  all  the  rest 
of  the  expedition.  Still  he  brought  back  to  Persepolis  the 
greater  portion  of  his  army,  and  found  himself  in  a  position, 


not  only  to  maintain  his  conquests,  but  to  undertake  fresh  ones, 
for  the  purpose  of  rounding  off  and  completing  his  empire. 

It  was  the  intention  of  Alexander,  after  taking  the  measures 
which  he  thought  advisable  for  the  consolidation  of  his  empire, 
and  the  improvement  of  his  intended  capital,  Babylon,  to  at- 
tempt the  conquest  of  the  peninsula  of  Arabia — a  vast  tract 
inconveniently  interposed  between  his  western  and  his  eastern 
provinces.  A  fleet,  under  Nearchus,  was  to  have  proceeded 
along  the  coast,  whilst  Alexander,  with  an  immense  host,  trav- 
ersed the  interior.  But  these  plans  were  brought  to  an  end 
by  the  sudden  death  of  their  projector  at  Babylon,  in  the  thir- 
teenth year  of  his  reign  and  the  thirty-third  of  his  age,  June, 
B.C.  323.  This  premature  demise  makes  it  impossible  to  de- 
termine whether,  or  no,  the  political  wisdom  of  Alexander 
was  on  a  par  with  his  strategic  ability — whether,  or  no,  he 
would  have  succeeded  in  consolidating  and  uniting  his  heter- 
ogeneous conquests,  and  have  proved  the  Darius  as  well  as 
the  Cyrus  of  his  empire.  Cut  off  unexpectedly  in  the  vigor 
of  early  manhood,  he  left  no  inheritor,  either  of  his  power  or 
of  his  projects.  The  empire  which  he  had  constructed  broke 
into  fragments  soon  after  his  death ;  and  his  plans,  whatever 
they  were,  perished  with  him. 

The  policy  of  Alexander,  so  far  as  appears,  aimed  at  com- 
plete fusion  and  amalgamation  of  his  own  Grseco-Macedonian 
subjects  with  the  dominant  race  of  the  subjugated  countries, 
the  Medo- Persians.  He  felt  the  difficulty  of  holding  such  ex- 
tensive conquests  by  garrisons  of  Europeans,  and  therefore  de- 
termined to  associate  in  the  task  of  ruling  and  governing  the 
Asiatic  race  which  had  shown  itself  most  capable  of  those  high 
functions.  Ultimately,  he  would  have  fused  the  two  peoples 
into  one  by  translations  of  populations  and  intermarriages. 
Meanwhile,  he  united  the  two  in  the  military  and  civil  services, 
incorporating  20,000  Persians  into  his  phalanx,  appointing 
many  Persians  to  satrapies,  and  composing  his  court  pretty 
equally  of  Persian  and  Macedonian  noblemen.  His  scheme 
had  the  merits  of  originality  and  intrinsic  fairness.  Its  execu- 
tion would  undoubtedly  have  elevated  Asia  to  a  point  which 
she  has  never  yet  reached.  But  this  advantage  could  not 
have  been  gained  without  some  counterbalancing  loss.    The 


mixed  people  which  it  was  his  object  to  produce,  while  vastly 
superior  to  ordinary  Asiatics,  would  have  fallen  far  below  the 
Hellenic,  perhaps  even  below  the  Macedonian  type.  It  is  thus 
not  much  to  be  regretted  that  the  scheme  was  nipped  in  the 
bud,  and  Hellenic  culture  preserved  in  tolerable  purity  to  ex- 
ercise a  paramount  influence  over  the  Roman,  and  so  over  the 
modern,  world. 

The  death  of  Alexander  has  been  ascribed  by  some  to  poi- 
son, by  others  to  habitual  drunkenness.  But  the  hardships  of 
the  Gedrosian  march  and  the  unhealthiness  of  the  Chaldsean 
marshes  sufficiently  account  for  it. 


From  the  Death  of  Alexander  the  Great  to  the  Battle  of  Ipsus, 
B.C.  323  to  301.* 

The  circumstances  under  which  Alexander  died  led  natu- 
rally to  a  period  of  convulsion.  He  left  at  his  death  no  legiti- 
mate issue,  and  designated  no  successor.  The  Macedonian 
law  of  succession  was  uncertain;  and,  of  those  who  had  the 
best  title  to  the  throne,  there  was  not  one  who  could  be  con- 
sidered by  any  unprejudiced  person  worthy  of  it.  The  great 
generals  of  the  deceased  king  became  thus,  almost  of  necessity, 
aspirants  to  the  regal  dignity ;  and  it  was  scarcely  possible  that 
their  rival  claims'  could  be  settled  without  an  appeal  to  arms 
and  a  long  and  bloody  struggle.  For  a  time,  the  fiction  of  a 
united  Macedonian  Empire  under  the  sovereignty  of  the  old 
royal  family  was  kept  up ;  but  from  the  first  the  generals  were 

*  Sources.  The  main  authority  for  this  period  is  Diodorus,  books 
xviii.  to  XX.  He  appears  to  have  followed,  in  this  portion  of  his  His- 
tory, the  contemporary  author,  Hieronymus  of  Cardia,  who  wrote  an 
account  of  Alexander  and  his  successors,  about  B.C.  270.  Plutarch's 
lives  of  Eumenes,  Demetrius,  and  Phocion  are  also  of  considerable 
value;  for,  though  he  draws  generally  from  Diodorus,  yet  occasionally 
he  has  recourse  to  independent  authorities,  e.g.,  Duris  of  Samos,  who 
wrote  a  Greek  and  also  a  Macedonion  History,  about  B.C.  280.  The 
thirteenth  book  of  Justin's  History  and  the  fragments  of  Arrian  and 
Dexippus  should  also  be  consulted.  For  these  fragments,  see  the 
"  Fragmenta  Historicorum  Graecorum  "  of  C.  Miiller,  vol.  iii. 


the  real  depositaries  of  power,  and  practically  a  division  of  au- 
thority took  effect  almost  from  Alexander's  death.* 

The  difficulty  with  respect  to  the  succession  was  terminated 
without  bloodshed.  The  claims  of  Hercules  being  passed 
over,  Arrhidaeus,  who  was  at  Babylon,  was  proclaimed  king 
under  the  name  of  Philip,  and  with  the  understanding  that  he 
was  to  share  the  empire  with  Roxana's  child,  if  she  should  give 
birth  to  a  boy.  At  the  same  time,  four  guardians,  or  regents, 
were  appointed — Antipater  and  Craterus  in  Europe,  Perdiccas 
and  Leonnatus  (for  whom  was  soon  afterwards  substituted 
Meleager)  in  Asia.  But  the  murder  of  Meleager  by  Perdiccas 
shortly  reduced  the  number  of  guardians  to  three. 

The  sole  command  of  the  great  army  of  Asia,  assumed  by 
Perdiccas  on  the  death  of  Meleager,  made  his  position  vastly 
superior  to  that  of  his  European  colleagues,  and  enabled  him 
to  take  the  entire  direction  of  affairs  on  his  own  side  of  the 
Hellespont.  But,  to  maintain  this  position,  it  was  necessary 
for  him  to  content  the  other  gjeat  military  chiefs,  who  had 
lately  been  his  equals,  and  who  would  not  have  been  satisfied 
to  remain  very  much  his  inferiors.  Accordingly,  a  distribu- 
tion of  satrapies  was  made  within  a  few  weeks  of  Alexander's 
death ;  and  each  chief  of  any  pretensions  received  a  province 
proportioned  to  his  merits  or  his  influence. 

It  was  not  the  intention  of  Perdiccas  to  break  up  the  unity 
of  Alexander's  empire.  Roxana  having  given  birth  to  a  boy, 
the  government  was  carried  on  in  the  name  of  the  two  joint 
kings.  Perdiccas's  own  office  was  that  of  vizier  or  prime  min- 
ister. The  generals  who  had  received  provinces  were  viewed 
by  Perdiccas  as  mere  governors  intrusted  with  their  adminis- 
tration, and  answerable  to  the  kings  for  it.  He  himself,  as 
prime  minister,  undertook  to  g^ve  commands  to  the  governors 
as  to  their  courses  of  action.  But  he  soon  found  that  they  de- 
clined to  pay  his  commands  any  respect.  The  centrifugal 
force  was  greater  than  the  centripetal ;  and  the  disintegjration 
of  the  empire  was  not  to  be  avoided. 

It  was  probably  the  uncertainty  of  his  actual  position,  and 
the  difficulty  of  improving  it  without  some  violent  step,  that 

•Alexander  left  an  illegitimate  son  named  Hercules,  who  was  ten 
or  twelve  years  old  at  the  time  of  Alexander's  death. 


led  Perdiccas  to  entertain  the  idea  of  removing  the  kings,  and 
himself  seizing  the  empire.  Though  he  had  married  Nicaea, 
the  daughter  of  Antipater,  he  arranged  to  repudiate  her,  and 
negotiated  a  marriage  with  Cleopatra,  Alexander's  sister. 
Such  a  union  would  have  given  to  his  claims  the  color  of  legiti- 
macy. The  opposition  which  he  had  chiefly  to  fear  was  that 
of  his  colleagues  in  the  regency,  Antipater  and  Craterus,  and 
of  the  powerful  satraps,  Ptolemy  Lagi  and  Antigonus.  The 
former  he  hoped  to  cajole,  while  he  crushed  the  latter.  But 
his  designs  were  penetrated.  Antigonus  fled  to  Macedonia, 
B.C.  322,  and  warned  Craterus  and  Antipater  of  their  danger. 
A  league  was  made  between  them  and  Ptolemy ;  and  thus,  in 
the  war  which  followed,  Perdiccas  and  his  friend  Eumenes 
were  engaged  on  the  one  side  against  Antipater,  Craterus,  An- 
tigonus, and  Ptolemy  Lagi  on  the  other. 

Perdiccas,  leaving  Eumenes  to  defend  Asia,  marched  in  per- 
son against  Ptolemy.  His  army  was  from  the  first  disaflfected ; 
and,  when  the  military  operations  with  which  he  commenced 
the  campaign  failed,  they  openly  mutinied,  attacked  him,  and 
slew  him  in  his  tent.  Meanwhile  Eumenes,  remaining  on  the 
defensive  in  Asia  Minor,  repulsed  the  assaults  made  upon  him, 
defeated  and  slew  Craterus,  and  made  himself  a  great  reputa- 

The  removal  of  Perdiccas  from  the  scene  necessitated  a  new 
arrangement.  Ptolemy  declining  the  regency,  it  was  con- 
ferred by  the  army  of  Perdiccas  on  Pithon  and  Arrhidseus, 
two  of  their  generals,  who  with  difficulty  maintained  their  posi- 
tion against  the  intrigues  of  Eurydice,  the  young  wife  of  the 
mock  monarch,  Philip  Arrhidseus,  until  the  arrival  of  Anti- 
pater in  Syria,  to  whom  they  resigned  their  office.  Antipater 
now  became  sole  regent,  silenced  Eurydice,  and  made  a  fresh 
division  of  the  provinces  at  Triparadisus,  in  Northern  Syria, 
B.C.  320. 

A  war  followed  between  Antigonus  and  Eumenes.  De- 
feated in  the  open  field  through  the  treachery  of  Apollonides, 
whom  Antigonus  had  bribed,  Eumenes  took  refuge  in  the 
mountain  fastness  of  Nora,  where  he  defended  himself  success- 
fully against  every  attack  for  many  months.  Antigonus 
turned  his  arms  against  other  so-called  rebels,  defeated  them, 


and  became  master  of  the  greater  part  of  Asia  Minor.  Mean- 
while, Ptolemy  picked  a  quarrel  with  Laomedon,  satrap  of 
Syria,  sent  an  army  into  his  province,  and  annexed  it. 

The  death  of  the  regent  Antipater  in  Macedonia  produced  a 
further  complication.  Overlooking  the  claims  of  his  son,  Cas- 
sander,  he  bequeathed  the  regency  to  his  friend,  the  aged  Po- 
lysperchon,  and  thus  drove  Cassander  into  opposition.  Cas- 
sander  fled  to  Antigonus ;  and  a  league  was  formed  between 
Ptolemy,  Cassander,  and  Antigonus  on  the  one  hand,  and  Po- 
lysperchon  and  Eumenes  on  the  other ;  the  two  latter  defend- 
ing the  cause  of  unity  and  of  the  Macedonian  monarchs,  the 
three  former  that  of  disruption  and  of  satrapial  independence. 

Antigonus  began  the  war  by  absorbing  Lydia  and  attacking 
Mysia.  He  was  soon,  however,  called  away  to  the  East  by  the 
threatening  attitude  of  Eumenes,  who  had  collected  a  force  in 
Cilicia,  with  which  he  menaced  Syria  and  Phoenicia.  The 
command  of  the  sea,  which  Phoenicia  might  have  given,  would 
have  enabled  Eumenes  and  Polysperchon  to  unite  their  forces 
and  act  together.  It  was  the  policy  of  Antigonus  to  prevent 
this.  Accordingly,  after  defeating  the  royal  fleet,  commanded 
by  Clitus,  near  Byzantium,  he  marched  in  person  against  Eu- 
menes, who  retreated  before  him,  crossed  the  Euphrates  and 
Tigris,  and  united  his  troops  with  those  of  a  number  of  the 
Eastern  satraps,  whom  he  found  leagued  together  to  resist  the 
aggressions  of  Seleucus  and  Pithon.  Antigonus  advanced  to 
Susa,  while  Eumenes  retreated  into  Persia  Proper.  Two  bat- 
tles were  fought  with  little  advantage  to  either  side ;  but  at  last 
the  Macedonian  jealousy  of  a  foreigner  and  the  insubordina- 
tion of  Alexander's  veterans  prevailed.  Eumenes  was  seized 
by  his  own  troops,  delivered  up  to  Antigonus,  and  put  to  death, 
B.C.  316. 

Meanwhile,  in  Europe,  Cassander  had  proved  fully  capable 
of  making  head  against  Polysperchon.  After  counteracting 
the  effect  of  Polysperchon's  proceedings  in  Attica  and  the  Pel- 
oponnese,  he  had  marched  into  Macedonia,  where  impor- 
tant changes  had  taken  place  among  the  members  of  the  royal 
family.  Eurydice,  the  young  wife  of  Philip  Arrhidaeus,  had 
raised  a  party,  and  so  alarmed  Polysperchon  for  his  own  power 
that  he  had  determined  on  making  common  cause  with  Olym- 


pias,  who  returned  from  Epirus  to  Macedon  on  his  invitation. 
Eurydice  found  herself  powerless  in  the  presence  of  the  more 
august  princess,  and,  betaking  herself  to  flight,  was  arrested, 
and,  together  with  her  husband,  put  to  death  by  her  rival,  B.C. 
317.  But  Cassander  avenged  her  the  next  year.  Entering 
Macedonia  suddenly,  he  carried  all  before  him,  besieged  Olym- 
pias  in  Pydna,  and,  though  she  surrendered  on  terms,  allowed 
her  to  be  killed  by  her  enemies.  Roxana  and  the  young  Alex- 
ander he  held  as  prisoners,  while  he  strengthened  his  title  to  the 
Macedonian  throne  by  a  marriage  with  Thessalonica,  the 
daughter  of  King  Philip. 

Thus  the  rebellious  satraps  had  everywhere  triumphed  over 
the  royalists,  and  the  Macedonian  throne  had  fallen,  though 
Roxana  and  the  young  Alexander  were  still  living.  But  now 
the  victors  fell  out  among  themselves.  Antigonus,  after  the 
death  of  Eumenes,  had  begun  to  let  it  be  seen  that  nothing  less 
than  the  entire  empire  of  Alexander  would  content  him.  He 
slew  Pithon,  drove  Seleucus  from  Babylonia,  and  distributed 
the  Eastern  provinces  to  his  creatures.  He  then  marched 
westward,  where  important  changes  had  occurred  during  his 
absence.  Cassander  had  made  himself  complete  master  of 
Macedonia  and  Greece ;  Lysimachus  had  firmly  established 
himself  in  Thrace ;  and  Asander,  satrap  of  Caria,  had  extended 
his  dominion  over  Lycia  and  Cappadocia.  These  chiefs,  fear- 
ing the  ambition  of  Antigonus,  entered  into  a  league  with 
Ptolemy  Lagi  and  Seleucus,  now  a  fugitive  at  his  court ;  and 
when  the  terms  which  they  proposed  were  rejected,  made  prep- 
arations for  war. 

The  war  of  Antigonus  against  Ptolemy,  Cassander,  Seleu- 
cus, Asander  (or  the  Carian  Cassander),  and  Lysimachus  lasted 
for  three  years.  Antigonus  had  the  assistance  of  his  son  De- 
metrius in  Asia,  and  (at  first)  of  Polysperchon  and  his  son 
Alexander  in  Europe.  He  was,  on  the  whole,  moderately  suc- 
cessful in  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  and  Greece ;  but  the  recovery  of 
Babylonia  by  Seleucus,  and  the  general  adhesion  to  his  cause 
of  the  Eastern  provinces,  more  than  counterbalanced  these 

The  terms  of  the  peace  negotiated  in  B.C.  311  were,  that 
each  should  keep  what  he  possessed;    that  the  Greek  cities 


should  be  independent ;  that  Cassander  should  retain  his  power 
till  the  young  Alexander  came  of  age.  Seleucus  was  no  party 
to  the  treaty,  and  was  not  mentioned  in  it.  It  was  probably 
thought  that  he  could  well  hold  his  own ;  though  had  he  been 
seriously  menaced,  the  treaty  would  have  been  at  once  thrown 
to  the  winds.  As  it  was,  only  a  few  months  passed  before  there 
was  a  renewal  of  hostilities. 

The  murder  of  Roxana  and  the  young  Alexander  by  the 
orders  of  Cassander  was  a  natural  consequence  of  the  third  arti- 
cle of  the  treaty,  and  was  no  doubt  expected  by  Antigonus. 
He  gladly  saw  these  royal  personages  removed  out  of  his  way ; 
while  it  suited  him  that  the  odium  of  the  act  should  attach  to 
one  of  his  adversaries. 

Hostilities  recommenced  in  the  year  following  the  treaty, 
B.C.  310.  They  were  precipitated  by  the  breach  which  took 
place  between  Antigonus  and  his  nephew  Ptolemy,  who  had 
been  employed  by  him  against  Cassander  in  Greece.  Ptolemy 
Lagi  was  the  first  to  take  up  arms.  Complaining  that  An- 
tigonus had  not  withdrawn  his  garrisons  from  the  Greek  cities 
of  Asia  Minor,  he  undertook  to  liberate  them.  Antigonus,  on 
his  side,  complained  that  Cassander  did  not  withdraw  his  gar- 
risons from  the  cities  of  European  Greece.  Thus  the  war  was 
renewed,  nominally  for  the  freedom  of  Greece.  In  reality,  the 
contest  was  for  supremacy  on  the  part  of  Antigonus,  for  inde- 
pendence on  that  of  the  satraps ;  and  the  only  question  with 
respect  to  Greece  was,  who  should  be  her  master. 

The  conquerors  at  Ipsus,  Seleucus  and  Lysimachus,  divided 
the  dominions  of  Alexander  afresh.  As  was  natural,  they  took 
to  themselves  the  lion's  share.  The  greater  part  of  Asia  Minor 
was  made  over  to  Lysimachus.  Seleucus  received  Cappa- 
docia,  part  of  Phrygia,  Upper  Syria,  Mesopotamia,  and  the  val- 
ley of  the  Euphrates.  Cilicia  was  given  to  Cassander's 
brother,  Pleistarchus.  Neither  Cassander  himself  nor  Ptol- 
emy received  any  additions  to  their  dominions. 

War  had  now  raged  over  most  of  the  countries  conquered  by 
Alexander  for  the  space  of  twenty  years.  The  loss  of  lives  and 
the  consumption  of  treasure  had  been  immense.  Greece,  Asia 
Minor,  Cyprus,  and  Syria,  which  had  been  the  chief  scenes  of 
conflict,  must  have  suffered  especially.     Nowhere  had  there 


been  much  attempt  at  organization  or  internal  improvements, 
the  attention  of  the  rulers  having  been  continually  fixed  on 
military  affairs.  Still,  the  evils  of  constant  warfare  had  been, 
out  of  Greece  at  any  rate,  partly  counterbalanced  by  the  foun- 
dation of  large  and  magnificent  cities,  intended  partly  as  indi- 
cations of  the  wealth  and  greatness  of  their  founders,  partly 
as  memorials  to  hand  down  their  names  to  after  ages ;  by  the 
habits  of  military  discipline  imparted  to  a  certain  number 
of  the  Asiatics ;  and  by  the  spread  of  the  Greek  language  and 
of  Greek  ideas  over  most  of  Western  Asia  and  North-eastern 
Africa.  The  many  dialects  of  Asia  Minor  died  away  and  com- 
pletely disappeared  before  the  tongue  of  the  conqueror  ;  which, 
even  where  it  did  not  wholly  oust  the  vernacular  (as  in  Egypt, 
in  Syria,  and  in  Upper  Asia),  stood  beside  it  and  above  it  as 
the  language  of  the  ruling  classes  and  of  the  educated,  gener- 
ally intelligible  to  such  persons  from  the  shores  of  the  Adriatic 
to  the  banks  of  the  Indus,  and  from  the  Crimea  to  Elephantine. 
Knowledge  rapidly  progressed ;  for  not  only  did  the  native 
histories  of  Egypt,  Babylon,  Phoenicia,  Judaea,  and  other  East- 
ern countries  become  now  for  the  first  time  really  known  to 
the  Greeks,  but  the  philosophic  thought  and  the  accumulated 
scientific  stores  of  the  most  advanced  Oriental  nations  were 
thrown  open  to  them,  and  Greek  intelligence  was  able  to  em- 
ploy itself  on  materials  of  considerable  value,  which  had  hith- 
erto been  quite  inaccessible.  A  great  advance  was  made  in 
the  sciences  of  mathematics,  astronomy,  geography,  ethnology, 
and  natural  history,  partly  through  this  opening  up  of  Oriental 
stores,  partly  through  the  enlarged  acquaintance  with  the 
world  and  its  phenomena  which  followed  on  the  occupation  by 
the  Greeks  of  vast  tracts  previously  untrodden  by  Europeans. 
Commerce,  too,  in  spite  of  the  unsettled  state  of  the  newly-oc- 
cupied countries,  extended  its  operations.  On  the  other  hand, 
upon  Greece  itself  familiarity  with  Asiatic  ideas  and  modes  of 
life  produced  a  debasing  effect.  The  Oriental  habits  of  ser- 
vility and  adulation  superseded  the  old  free-spoken  indepen- 
dence and  manliness ;  patriotism  and  public  spirit  disappeared ; 
luxury  increased;  literature  lost  its  vigor;  art  deteriorated; 
and  the  people  sank  into  a  nation  of  pedants,  parasites,  and 



History  of  the  States  into  which  the  Macedonian  Monarchy 
was  broken  up  after  the  Battle  of  Ipsus. 

Part  I. 
History  of  the  Syrian  Kingdom  of  the  Seleucida^  B.C.  312  to  dj.* 

The  kingdom  of  the  Seleucidae  was  originally  established  in 
Inner  Asia.  It  dates  from  the  year  B.C.  312,  when  its  founder, 
Seleucus  Nicator,  or  "  the  Conqueror,"  taking  advantage  of 
the  check  which  Antigonus  had  received  by  the  victory  of 
Ptolemy  Lagi  over  Demetrius,  near  Gaza,  returned  to  the  prov- 
ince from  which  he  had  been  a  few  years  earlier  expelled  by  his 
g^eat  adversary,  and,  re-establishing  himself  without  much  dif- 
ficulty, assumed  the  diadem.  At  first,  the  kingdom  consisted 
merely  of  Babylonia  and  the  adjacent  regions,  Susiana,  Media, 
and  Persia;  but,  after  the  unsuccessful  expedition  of  Deme- 
trius (B.C.  311),  the  Oriental  provinces  generally  submitted 
themselves,  and  within  six  years  from  the  date  of  his  return 
to  Babylon,  Seleucus  was  master  of  all  the  countries  lying 
between  the  Indus  and  Euphrates  on  the  one  hand,  the  Jax- 
artes  and  the  Indian  Ocean  on  the  other. 

Shortly  afterwards  he  undertook  a  great  campaign  against 
Sandracottus  (Chandragnpta),  an  Indian  monarch,  who  bore 
sway  in  the  region  about  the  western  head  streams  of  the  Gan- 
ges. After  a  brief  struggle,  he  concluded  a  peace  with  this 
powerful  prince,  who  furnished  him  with  500  elephants,  and 
threw  India  open  to  his  traders.    It  is  probable  that  he  pur- 

*  Sources.  The  original  authorities  for  the  history  of  Syria  during 
this  period  are  two  books  (xix.,  xx.),  and  the  fragments  of  several  lost 
books,  of  Diodorus  (lib.  xxi.-xxxiv.).  the  epitome  of  Justin,  some  books 
and  fragments  of  Polybius  (especially  books  v.,  vii.,  and  viii.).  the 
"  Syriaca  "  of  Appian,  Livy  (books  xxxi.  to  xlv.),  the  "  Books  of  Mac- 
cabees," and  the  "  Antiquities  "  of  Josephus.  None  of  these  works  con- 
tain a  continuous  or  complete  account  of  the  whole  period;  and  the 
history  has  to  be  constructed  by  piecing  together  the  different  narra- 
tives. The  chronology  of  the  later  kings  depends  mainly  upon  the 
dates  which  appear  on  their  coins. 


chased  the  good-will  of  Sandracottus  by  ceding  to  him  a  por- 
tion of  his  own  Indian  possessions. 

In  the  year  B.C.  302  Seleucus,  whose  aid  had  been  invoked 
by  Lysimachus  and  Cassander,  set  out  from  Babylon  for  Asia 
Minor,  and,  having  wintered  in  Cappadocia,  effected  a  junction 
with  the  forces  of  Lysimachus  early  in  the  spring  of  B.C.  301. 
The  battle  of  Ipsus  followed.  Antigonus  was  defeated  and 
slain,  and  his  dominions  shared  by  his  conquerors.  To  the 
kingdom  of  Seleucus  were  added  Cappadocia,  part  of  Phrygia, 
Upper  Syria,  and  the  right  bank  of  the  middle  Euphrates. 

By  this  arrangement  the  territorial  increase  which  the  king- 
dom received  was  not  large;  but  the  change  in  the  seat  of 
empire,  which  the  accession  of  territory  brought  about,  was 
extremely  important.  By  shifting  his  capital  from  Babylonia 
to  Syria,  from  the  Lower  Tigris  to  the  Orontes,  Seleucus 
thought  to  strengthen  himself  against  his  rivals,  Lysimachus 
and  Ptolemy.  He  forgot,  apparently,  that  by  placing  his  cap- 
ital at  one  extremity  of  his  long  kingdom  he  weakened  it  gen- 
erally, and,  in  particular,  loosened  his  grasp  upon  the  more 
eastern  provinces,  which  were  the  least  Hellenized  and  the 
most  liable  to  revolt.  Had  Babylon  or  Seleucia  continued  the 
seat  of  government,  the  East  might  probably  have  been  re- 
tained ;  the  kingdom  of  the  Parthians  might  never  have  grown 
up.  Rome,  when  she  interfered  in  the  affairs  of  Asia,  would 
have  found  a  great  Greek  Empire  situated  beyond  the  Eu- 
phrates, and  so  almost  inaccessible  to  her  arms ;  the  two  civil- 
izations would  have  co-existed,  instead  of  being  superseded 
the  one  by  the  other,  and  the  history  of  Asia  and  of  the  world 
would  have  been  widely  different. 

The  followers  of  Alexander  inherited  from  their  master  a 
peculiar  fondness  for  the  building  of  new  cities,  which  they 
called  after  themselves,  their  fathers,  or  their  favorite  wives. 
Cassander  built  Thessalonica  on  the  bay  of  the  name,  and 
Cassandreia  in  the  peninsula  of  Pallene.  Lysimachus  fixed 
his  seat  of  government  at  a  new  town,  which  he  called  Lysi- 
macheia,  on  the  neck  of  the  Chersonese.  Antigonus  was  build- 
ing Antigoneia,  on  the  Orontes,  when  he  fell  at  Ipsus.  His 
son,  Demetrius,  made  his  capital  Demetrias,  on  the  gulf  of 
Pagasae.    Seleucus,  even  before  he  transferred  the  seat  of  gov- 


emment  to  Antioch,  had  removed  it  from  Babylon  to  his  city 
of  Seleucia,  on  the  Tigris.  Ptolemy  alone  maintained  the  cap- 
ital which  he  found  established  on  his  arrival  in  Egypt.  The 
numerous  Antiochs,  Laodiceias,  Epiphaneias,  and  Seleuceias, 
with  which  Asia  became  covered,  attest  the  continuance  of  the 
taste  in  the  successors  of  Nicator. 

Though  Seleucus  had  come  to  the  rescue,  on  the  invitation 
of  Ptolemy,  Cassander,  and  Lysimachus,  yet  he  was  well  aware 
that  he  could  place  no  dependence  on  the  continuance  of  their 
amity.  His  success  made  them  jealous  of  him,  and  induced 
them  to  draw  nearer  to  each  other,  and  unite  their  interests  by 
intermarriages.  Seleucus,  therefore,  cast  about  for  an  ally, 
and  found  one  in  Demetrius,  the  son  of  Antigonus,  his  late 
adversary,  whom  he  attached  to  himself  in  the  same  way. 
Demetrius,  who  had  escaped  from  Ipsus  with  a  considerable 
force,  was  a  personage  of  importance;  and,  by  supporting 
him  in  his  quarrels  with  Cassander,  and  then  Lysimachus, 
Seleucus  was  able  to  keep  those  princes  employed. 

In  Asia  a  period  of  tranquillity  followed  the  marriage  of  Se- 
leucus. Cassander  and  Lysimachus  were  occupied  with  wars 
in  Europe  raised  by  the  ambition  of  Demetrius.  Ptolemy  by 
himself  was  too  weak  to  effect  any  thing,  and,  having  been  al- 
lowed to  retain  Lower  Syria  and  Palestine,  had  no  ground  of 
complaint.  Seleucus  employed  the  interval  (about  twelve 
years,  B.C.  299  to  287)  in  building  his  capital,  Antioch ;  en- 
larging and  beautifying  its  port,  Seleuceia ;  and  consolidating, 
arranging,  and  organizing  his  vast  empire.  The  whole  terri- 
tory was  divided  into  seventy-two  satrapies,  which  were  placed 
under  the  government  of  Greeks  or  Macedonians,  not  of  na- 
tives. A  large  standing  army  was  maintained,  composed  main- 
ly of  native  troops,  officered  by  Macedonians  or  Greeks.  After 
a  while,  Seleucus  divided  his  empire  with  his  son  Antiochus, 
committing  to  him  the  entire  government  of  all  the  provinces 
beyond  the  Euphrates — a  dangerous  precedent,  though  one 
which  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  had  actual  evil  consequences. 
At  the  same  time.  Seleucus  yielded  to  Antiochus  the  possession 
of  his  consort,  Stratonice,  with  whom  that  prince  had  fallen 
desperately  in  love. 

The  first  disturbance  of  the  tranquillity  was  caused  by  the 


wild  projects  of  Demetrius.  That  hare-brained  prince,  after 
gaining  and  then  losing  Macedonia,  plunged  suddenly  into 
Asia,  where  he  hoped  to  win  by  his  sword  a  new  dominion. 
Unable  to  make  any  serious  impression  on  the  kingdom  of 
Lysimachus,  he  entered  Cilicia  and  became  engaged  in  hos- 
tilities with  Seleucus,  who  defeated  him,  took  him  prisoner, 
and  kept  him  in  a  private  condition  for  the  rest  of  his  life. 

Shortly  afterwards,  B.C.  281,  occurred  the  rupture  between 
Seleucus  and  Lysimachus,  which  led  to  the  death  of  that  aged 
monarch  and  the  conquest  of  great  part  of  his  dominions. 
Domestic  troubles,  caused  by  Arsinoe,  paved  the  way  for  the 
attack  of  Seleucus,  who  found  his  best  support  in  the  disafifec- 
tion  of  his  enemy's  subjects.  The  battle  of  Corupedion  cost 
Lysimachus  his  life ;  and  gave  the  whole  of  Asia  Minor  into 
the  hands  of  the  Syrian  king.  It  might  have  been  expected 
that  the  European  provinces  would  have  been  gained  with 
equal  ease,  and  that,  with  the  exception  of  Egypt,  the  scat- 
tered fragments  of  Alexander's  empire  would  have  been  once 
more  reunited.  But  an  avenger  of  Lysimachus  appeared  in 
the  person  of  the  Egyptian  exile,  Ptolemy  Ceraunus,  the  eldest 
son  of  Ptolemy  Lagi ;  and  as  Seleucus  was  proceeding  to  take 
possession  of  Lysimacheia,  his  late  rival's  capital,  he  was  mur- 
dered in  open  day  by  the  Egyptian  adventurer,  who  thereupon 
became  king  of  Macedon. 

Antiochus  L  (Soter)  succeeded  to  his  father's  dominions, 
B.C.  280,  and  shortly  became  engaged  in  hostilities  with  Zi- 
poetes  and  Nicomedes,  native  kings  of  Bithynia,  the  former 
of  whom  had  successfully  maintained  his  independence  against 
Lysimachus.  Nicomedes  (B.C.  278),  finding  his  own  resources 
insufficient  for  the  struggle,  availed  himself  of  the  assistance 
of  the  Gauls,  who  had  been  now  for  some  years  ravaging  East- 
ern Europe,  and  had  already  aided  him  against  his  brother 
Zipoetes.  With  their  help  he  maintained  his  independence,  and 
crippled  the  power  of  Antiochus,  who  lost  Northern  Phrygia, 
which  was  occupied  by  the  Gauls  and  became  Galatia,  and 
North-western  Lydia,  which  became  the  kingdom  of  Perga- 
mus.  Antiochus  succeeded  in  inflicting  one  considerable  defeat 
on  the  Gauls,  B.C.  275,  whence  his  cognomen  of  "  Soter  " 
(Saviour);    otherwise  his  expeditions  were  unfortunate;    and 


the  Syrian  empire  at  his  death  had  declined  considerably  below 
the  point  of  greatness  and  splendor  reached  under  Nicator. 

Antiochus  II.  sumamed  6eo9,  "  the  God,"  succeeded  his 
father.  He  was  a  weak  and  eflfeminate  prince,  sunk  in  sensual- 
ity and  profligacy,  who  allowed  the  kingdom  to  be  ruled  by 
his  wives  and  male  favorites.  Under  him  the  decline  of  the 
empire  became  rapid.  The  weakness  of  his  government  tempt- 
ed the  provinces  to  rebel ;  and  the  Parthian  and  Bactrian  king- 
doms date  from  his  reign.  The  only  success  which  attended 
him  was  in  his  war  with  Egypt,  at  the  close  of  which  he  recov- 
ered what  he  had  previously  lost  to  Philadelphus  in  Asia  Minor. 

Seleucus  II.,  sumamed  Callinicus,  became  king  on  the  as- 
sassination of  his  father.  Throughout  his  reign,  which  lasted 
rather  more  than  twenty  years,  B.C.  246  to  226,  he  was  most 
unfortunate,  being  engaged  in  wars  with  Ptolemy  Euergetes, 
with  Antiochus  Hierax,  his  own  brother,  and  with  the  Parthian 
king,  Arsaces  II.,  in  all  of  which  he  met  with  disasters.  Still, 
it  is  remarkable  that,  even  when  his  fortunes  were  at  the  lowest 
ebb,  he  always  found  a  means  of  recovering  himself,  so  that 
his  epithet  of  Callinicus,  "  the  Victorious,"  was  not  wholly  in- 
appropriate. The  kingdom  must  have  been  greatly  weakened 
and  exhausted  during  his  reign ;  but  its  limits  were  not  seri- 
ously contracted.  Portions  of  Asia  Minor  were  indeed  lost 
to  Ptolemy  and  to  Attains,  and  the  Parthians  appear  to  have 
made  themselves  masters  of  Hyrcania ;  but,  excepting  in  these 
two  quarters,  Seleucus  recovered  his  losses,  and  left  the  terri- 
tories which  he  had  inherited  to  his  son,  Seleucus  Ceraunus. 

Seleucus  III. — sumamed  Ceraunus,  "  the  Thunderbolt  " — 
had  a  reign  which  lasted  only  three  years.  Assisted  by  his 
cousin,  the  young  Achseus,  he  prepared  a  great  expedition 
against  the  Perganiene  monarch.  Attains,  whose  dominions 
now  reached  to  the  Taurus.  His  ill-paid  army,  however,  while 
on  the  march,  became  mutinous ;  and  he  was  assassinated  by 
some  of  his  officers,  B.C.  223. 

On  the  death  of  Seleucus  III.,  Antiochus  III.,  sumamed 
"  the  Great,"  ascended  the  throne.  His  long  reign,  which  ex- 
ceeded thirty-six  years,  constitutes  the  most  eventful  period 
of  Syrian  history.  Antiochus  did  much  to  recover,  consolidate, 
and  in  some  quarters  enlarge,  his  empire.    He  put  down  the 


important  rebellions  of  Molo  and  Achaeus,  checked  the  prog- 
ress of  the  Parthians  and  Bactrians,  restored  his  frontier  to- 
wards India,  drove  the  Egyptians  from  Asia,  and  even  at  one 
time  established  his  dominion  over  a  portion  of  Europe.  But 
these  successes  were  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  losses 
which  he  sustained  in  his  war  with  the  Romans,  whom  he  need- 
lessly drew  into  Asia.  The  alliance  between  Rome  and  Perga- 
mus,  and  the  consequent  aggrandizement  of  that  kingdom, 
were  deeply  injurious  to  Syria,  and  greatly  accelerated  her  de- 
cline. Antiochus  was  unwise  to  provoke  the  hostility  of  the 
Romans,  and  foolish,  when  he  had  provoked  it,  not  to  take 
the  advice  of  Hannibal  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  war  should 
be  conducted.  Had  he  united  with  Macedonia  and  Carthage, 
and  transferred  the  contest  into  Italy,  the  Roman  power  might 
have  been  broken  or  checked.  By  standing  alone,  and  on  the 
defensive,  he  at  once  made  his  defeat  certain,  and  rendered  its 
consequences  more  injurious  than  they  would  have  been  other- 

Antiochus  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Seleucus  IV.,  who  took 
the  name  of  Philopator,  and  reigned  eleven  years,  B.C.  187  to 
176.  This  period  was  wholly  uneventful.  The  fear  of  Rome, 
and  the  weakness  produced  by  exhaustion,  forced  Seleucus  to 
remain  quiet,  even  when  Eumenes  of  Pergamus  seemed  about 
to  conquer  and  absorb  Pontus.  Rome  held  as  a  hostage  for 
his  fidelity,  first,  his  brother,  Antiochus,  and  then  his  son, 
Demetrius.  Seleucus  was  murdered  by  Heliodorus,  his  treas- 
urer (B.C.  176),  who  hoped  to  succeed  to  his  dominions. 

On  the  death  of  Seleucus,  the  throne  was  seized  by  Helio- 
dorus ;  but  it  was  not  long  before  Antiochus,  the  brother  of  the 
late  king,  with  the  help  of  the  Pergamene  monarch,  Eumenes, 
recovered  it.  This  prince,  who  is  known  in  history  as  Antio- 
chus IV.,  or  (more  commonly)  as  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  was 
a  man  of  courage  and  energy.  He  engaged  in  important  wars 
with  Armenia  and  Egypt;  and  would  beyond  a  doubt  have 
conquered  the  latter  country,  had  it  not  been  for  the  interposi- 
tion of  the  Romans.  Still,  the  energy  of  Epiphanes  was  of 
little  benefit  to  his  country.  He  gained  no  permanent  advan- 
tage from  his  Egyptian  campaigns,  since  the  Romans  deprived 
him  even  of  Cyprus.    He  made  no  serious  impression  on  Ar- 


menia,  though  he  captured  Artaxias,  its  sovereign.  On  the 
other  hand,  his  religious  intolerance  raised  him  up  an  enemy 
in  the  heart  of  his  empire,  whose  bitter  hostility  proved  under 
his  successors  a  prolific  source  of  weakness.  The  Jews,  favored 
by  former  kings  of  Syria,  were  driven  to  desperation  by  the 
mad  project  of  this  self-willed  monarch,  who,  not  content  with 
plundering  the  Temple  to  satisfy  his  necessities,  profaned  it 
by  setting  up  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  the  image  of  Jupiter 
Olympius.  His  luxury  and  extravagance  also  tended  to  ruin 
his  empire,  and  made  him  seek  to  enrich  himself  with  the  plun- 
der of  other  temples  besides  that  at  Jerusalem.  An  attempt 
of  this  kind,  which  was  baffled,  in  Elymais,  is  said  to  have  been 
followed  by  an  access  of  superstitious  terror,  which  led  to  his 
death  at  Tabae,  B.C.  164. 

Epiphanes  was  succeeded  by  Antiochus  V.,  surnamed  Eu- 
pator,  a  boy  not  more  than  twelve  years  old.  The  chief  power 
during  his  reig^  was  in  the  hands  of  Lysias,  whom  Epiphanes 
had  left  as  regent  when  he  quitted  Antioch.  Lysias  attempts 
to  reduce  the  rebel  Jews,  but  allows  himself  to  be  diverted  from 
the  war  by  the  attitude  of  his  rival  Philip,  whom  he  attacks, 
defeats,  and  puts  to  death.  He  takes  no  steps,  however,  to 
resist  the  Parthians  when  they  overrun  the  Elastern  provinces, 
or  the  Romans  when  they  harshly  enforce  the  terms  of  the 
treaty  concluded  after  the  battle  of  Magnesia.  The  position 
of  affairs,  which  we  can  well  understand  the  Romans  favoring, 
was  most  injurious  to  the  power  of  Syria,  which,  in  the  hands 
of  a  minor  and  a  regent,  was  equally  incapable  of  maintaining 
internal  order  and  repelling  foreign  attack.  It  was  an  advan- 
tage to  Syria  when  Demetrius,  the  adult  son  of  Seleucus  Philo- 
pator,  escaped  from  Rome,  where  he  had  been  long  detained 
as  a  hostage,  and,  putting  Lysias  and  Eupator  to  death,  him- 
self mounted  the  throne. 

Demetrius,  having  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  sanction  of 
Rome  to  his  usurpation,  occupied  himself  for  some  years  in 
attempts  to  reduce  the  Jews.  He  appears  to  have  been  a  vig- 
orous administrator,  and  a  man  of  considerable  ambition  and 
energy ;  but  he  could  not  arrest  the  decline  of  the  Syrian  state. 
The  Romans  compelled  him  to  desist  from  his  attacks  on  the 
Jews;   and  when  he  ventured  on  an  expedition  into  Cappa- 


docia,  for  the  purpose  of  expelling  the  king  Ariarathes,  and 
giving  the  crown  to  Orophernes,  his  bastard  brother,  a  league 
was  formed  against  him  by  the  neighboring  kings,  to  which 
the  Romans  became  parties  ;  and  a  pretender,  Alexander  Balas, 
an  illegitimate  son  of  Epiphanes,  was  encouraged  to  come  for- 
ward and  claim  the  throne.  So  low  had  the  Syrian  power  now 
sunk,  that  both  Demetrius  and  his  rival  courted  the  favor  of 
the  despised  Jews;  and  their  adhesion  to' the  cause  of  the  pre- 
tender probably  turned  the  scale  in  his  favor.  After  two  years 
of  warfare  and  two  important  battles,  Demetrius  was  defeated, 
and  lost  both  his  crown  and  life. 

Alexander  Balas,  who  had  been  supported  in  his  struggle 
with  Demetrius  by  the  kings  of  Pergamus  and  Egypt,  was 
given  by  the  latter  the  hand  of  Cleopatra,  his  daughter.  But 
he  soon  proved  himself  unfit  to  rule.  Committing  the  man- 
agement of  affairs  to  an  unworthy  favorite,  Ammonius,  he  gave 
himself  up  to  every  kind  of  self-indulgence.  Upon  this,  Deme- 
trius, the  eldest  son  of  the  late  king,  perceiving  that  Balas  had 
become  odious  to  his  subjects,  took  heart,  and,  landing  in  Cili- 
cia,  commenced  a  struggle  for  the  throne.  The  fidelity  of  the 
Jews  protected  Alexander  for  a  while;  but  when  his  father- 
in-law,  Ptolemy  Philometor,  passed  over  to  the  side  of  his  an- 
tagonist, the  contest  was  decided  against  him.  Defeated  in 
a  pitched  battle  near  Antioch,  he  fled  to  Abas  in  Arabia,  where 
he  was  assassinated  by  his  own  officers,  who  sent  his  head  to 

Demetrius  II.,  surnamed  Nicator,  then  ascended  the  throne. 
He  had  already,  while  pretender,  married  Cleopatra,  the  wife 
of  his  rival,  whom  Ptolemy  had  forced  Balas  to  give  up.  On 
obtaining  full  possession  of  the  kingdom,  he  ruled  tyrannically, 
and  disgusted  many  of  his  subjects.  The  people  of  Antioch 
having  risen  in  revolt,  and  Demetrius  having  allowed  his  Jew- 
ish body-guard  to  plunder  the  town,  Diodotus  of  Apamea  set 
up  a  rival  king  in  the  person  of  Antiochus  VI.,  son  of  Alexan- 
der Balas,  a  child  of  two  years  of  age,  who  bore  the  regal  title 
for  three  or  four  years  (B.C.  146  to  143),  after  which  Diodotus 
removed  him,  and,  taking  the  name  of  Trypho,  declared  him- 
self independent  monarch  {avroKpdTwp).  After  vain  efforts  to 
reduce  his  rivals  for  the  space  of  about  seven  years,  Demetrius, 



leaving  his  wife,  Qeopatra,  to  maintain  his  interests  in  Syria, 
marched  into  his  Eastern  provinces,  which  were  in  danger  of 
falHng  a  prey  to  the  Parthians.  Here,  though  at  first  he  gained 
such  advantages  as  enabled  him  to  assume  the  title  of  "  Con- 
queror "  (viKciTtop),  his  arms  soon  met  with  a  reverse.  Defeated 
by  the  Parthian  monarch,  Arsaces  VI.,  in  the  year  B.C.  140, 
he  was  taken  prisoner,  and  remained  a  captive  at  the  Parthian 
court  for  several  years. 

During  the  absence  of  Demetrius  in  the  remote  East,  his 
wife,  Cleopatra,  unable  to  make  head  against  Tryphon,  looked 
out  for  some  effectual  support,  and  found  it  in  Antiochus  of 
Sida  (Sidetes),  her  husband's  brother,  who,  joining  his  arms 
with  hers,  attacked  Tryphon,  and  after  a  struggle,  which  seems 
to  have  lasted  nearly  two  years,  defeated  him  and  put  him  to 
death.  Antiochus  Sidetes  upon  this  became  sole  monarch  of 
Syria,  B.C.  137,  and  contracted  a  marriage  with  Cleopatra,  his 
captive  brother's  wife,  who  considered  herself  practically  di- 
vorced by  her  husband's  captivity  and  marriage  with  a  Par- 
thian princess.  His  first  step,  after  establishing  his  authority, 
was  to  reduce  the  Jews,  B.C.  135  to  133.  A  few  years  later, 
B.C.  129,  he  undertook  an  expedition  into  Parthia  for  the  pur- 
pose of  delivering  his  brother,  and  gained  some  important  suc- 
cesses ;  but  was  finally  defeated  by  the  Parthian  monarch,  who 
attacked  his  army  in  its  winter-quarters,  and  destroyed  it  with 
its  commander. 

Meanwhile  Demetrius  II.,  having  been  released  from  cap- 
tivity by  the  Parthian  monarch,  who  hoped  by  exciting 
troubles  in  Syria  to  force  Antiochus  to  retreat,  had  reached 
Antioch  and  recovered  his  former  kingdom.  But  he  was  not 
suflFered  to  remain  long  in  tranquillity.  Ptolemy  Physcon,  the 
king  of  Eg>'pt,  raised  up  a  pretender  to  his  crown  in  the  person 
of  Alexander  Zabinas,  who  professed  to  be  the  son  of  Balas. 
A  battle  was  fought  between  the  rivals  near  Damascus,  in 
which  Demetrius  was  completely  defeated.  Forced  to  take 
flight,  he  sought  a  refuge  with  his  wife  at  Ptolemais,  but  was 
rejected ;  whereupon  he  endeavored  to  throw  himself  into  Tyre, 
but  was  captured  and  slain,  B.C.  126. 

War  followed  between  Zabinas  and  Cleopatra,  who,  having 
put  to  death  Seleucus,  her  eldest  son,  because  he  had  assumed 


the  diadem  without  her  permission,  associated  with  herself  on 
the  throne  her  second  son,  Antiochus,  and  reigned  conjointly 
with  him  till  B.C.  121.  Zabinas  maintained  himself  in  parts  of 
Syria  for  seven  years ;  but,  having  quarrelled  with  his  patron, 
Ptolemy  Physcon,  he  was  reduced  to  straits,  about  B.C.  124, 
and  two  years  afterwards  was  completely  crushed  by  Anti- 
ochus, who  forced  him  to  swallow  poison,  B.C.  122.  Soon 
afterwards — B.C.  121 — Antiochus  found  himself  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  putting  his  mother  to  death  in  order  to  secure  his 
own  life,  against  which  he  discovered  her  to  be  plotting. 

Syria  now  enjoyed  a  period  of  tranquillity  under  Antiochus 
VIII.,  for  the  space  of  eight  years,  B.C.  122  to  1 14.  The  East- 
ern provinces  were,  however,  completely  lost,  and  no  attempt 
was  made  to  recover  them.  The  Syrian  kingdom  was  con- 
fined within  Taurus  on  the  north,  the  Euphrates  on  the  east, 
and  Palestine  on  the  south.  Judsea  had  become  wholly  inde- 
pendent. The  great  empire,  which  had  once  reached  from 
Phrygia  to  the  Indus,  had  shrunk  to  the  dimensions  of  a  prov- 
ince; and  there  was  no  spirit  in  either  prince  or  people  to 
make  any  effort  to  regain  what  had  been  lost.  The  country 
was  exhausted  by  the  constant  wars,  the  pillage  of  the  soldiers, 
and  the  rapacity  of  the  monarchs.  Wealth  was  accumulated 
in  a  few  hands.  The  people  of  the  capital  were  wholly  given 
up  to  luxury.  If  Rome  had  chosen  to  step  in  at  any  time  after 
the  death  of  the  second  Demetrius,  she  might  have  become 
mistress  of  the  whole  of  Syria  almost  without  a  struggle.  At 
first  her  domestic  troubles,  and  then  her  contest  with  Mith- 
ridates,  hindered  her,  so  that  it  was  not  till  half  a  century  later 
that  the  miseries  of  Syria  were  ended  by  her  absorption  into 
the  Roman  Empire. 

The  tranquillity  of  Antiochus  VIII.  was  disturbed  in  B.C. 
114  by  the  revolt  of  his  half-brother,  Antiochus  Cyzicenus,  the 
son  of  Cleopatra  by  Antiochus  Sidetes,  her  third  husband.  A 
bloody  contest  followed,  which  it  was  attempted  to  terminate 
at  the  close  of  three  years,  B.C.  1 11,  by  a  partition  of  the  terri- 
tory. But  the  feud  soon  broke  out  afresh.  War  raged  be- 
tween the  brothers  for  nine  years,  B.C.  105  to  96,  with  varied 
success,  but  with  no  decided  advantage  to  either,  while  the  dis- 
integration of  the  empire  rapidly  proceeded.     The  towns  on 



the  coast,  Tyre,  Sidon,  Seleuceia,  assumed  independence.  Ci- 
licia  revolted.  The  Arabs  ravaged  Syria  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  Egyptians  on  the  other.  At  length,  amid  these  various 
calamities,  the  reign  of  Antiochus  VIII.  came  to  an  end  by  his 
assassination,  in  B.C.  96,  by  Heracleon,  an  officer  of  his  court. 

Heracleon  endeavored  to  seize  the  crown,  but  failed.  It  fell 
to  Seleucus  V.  (Epiphanes),  the  eldest  son  of  Grypus,  who  con- 
tinued the  war  with  Antiochus  Cyzicenus,  and  brought  it  to  a 
successful  issue  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign,  B.C.  95,  when 
Cyzicenus,  defeated  in  a  great  battle,  slew  himself  to  prevent 
his  capture.  But  the  struggle  between  the  two  houses  was  not 
yet  ended.  Antiochus  Eusebes,  the  son  of  Cyzicenus,  as- 
sumed the  royal  title,  and  attacking  Seleucus  drove  him  out  of 
Syria  into  Cilicia,  where  he  perished  miserably,  being  burnt 
alive  by  the  people  of  Mopsuestia,  from  whom  he  had  required 
a  contribution. 

Philip,  the  second  son  of  Antiochus  Grypus,  succeeded,  and 
carried  on  the  war  with  Eusebes  for  some  years,  in  conjunction 
with  his  brothers,  Demetrius,  and  Antiochus  Dionysus,  until  at 
last  Eusebes  was  overcome  and  forced  to  take  refuge  in  Par- 
thia.  Philip  and  his  brothers  then  fell  out,  and  engaged  in  war 
one  against  another.  At  length  the  Syrians,  seeing  no  end  to 
these  civil  contests,  called  to  their  aid  the  king  of  the  neigh- 
boring Armenia,  Tigranes,  and  putting  themselves  under  his 
rule,  obtained  a  respite  from  suffering  for  about  fourteen  years, 
B.C.  83  to  69.  At  the  close  of  this  period,  Tigranes,  having 
mixed  himself  up  in  the  Mithridatic  war,  was  defeated  by  the 
Romans,  and  forced  to  relinquish  Syria. 

The  Syrian  throne  seems  then  to  have  fallen  to  Antiochus 
Asiaticus,  the  son  of  Eusebes,  who  held  it  for  four  years  only, 
when  he  was  dispossessed  by  Pompey,  and  the  remnant  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  Seleucidae  was  reduced  into  the  form  of  a  Ro- 
man province,  B.C.  65. 



Part  II. 
History  of  the  Egyptian  Kingdom  of  the  Ptolemies,  B.  C.  32 j  to  jo.^ 

The  kingdom  of  the  Ptolemies,  which  owed  its  origin  to 
Alexander  the  Great,  rose  to  a  pitch  of  greatness  and  prosper- 
ity which,  it  is  probable,  was  never  dreamt  of  by  the  Conqueror. 
His  subjection  of  Egypt  was  accomplished  rapidly;  and  he 
spent  but  little  time  in  the  organization  of  his  conquest.  Still, 
the  foundation  of  all  Egypt's  later  greatness  was  laid,  and  the 
character  of  its  second  civilization  determined,  by  him,  in  the 
act  by  which  he  transferred  the  seat  of  government  from  the 
inland  position  of  Memphis  to  the  maritime  Alexandria.  By 
this  alteration  not  only  was  the  continued  pre-eminence  of  the 
Macedo-Greek  element  secured,  but  the  character  of  the  Egyp- 
tians themselves  was  modified.  Commercial  pursuits  were 
adopted  by  a  large  part  of  the  nation.  Intercourse  with  for- 
eigners, hitherto  checked  and  discouraged,  became  common. 
Production  was  stimulated ;  enterprise  throve ;  and  the  stereo- 
typed habits  of  this  most  rigid  of  ancient  peoples  were  to  a 
large  extent  broken  into.  In  language  and  religion  they  still 
continued  separate  from  their  conquerors ;  but  their  manners 
and  tone  of  thought  underwent  a  change.  The  stiflf-necked 
rebels  against  the  authority  of  the  Persian  crown  became  the 
willing  subjects  of  the  Macedonians.  Absorbed  in  the  pur- 
suits of  industry,  or  in  the  novel  employment  of  literature,  the 
Egyptians  forgot  their  old  love  of  independence,  and  content- 
edly acquiesced  in  the  new  regime. 

*  Sources.  The  sources  for  the  Egyptian  history  of  this  period  are  for 
the  most  part  identical  with  those  which  have  been  mentioned  at  the 
head  of  the  last  section  as  sources  for  the  history  of  the  Seleucidae;  but 
on  the  whole  they  are  scantier  and  less  satisfactory.  As  the  contact 
between  Judaea  and  Egypt  during  this  period  was  only  occasional,  the 
information  furnished  by  Josephus  and  the  "  Books  of  Maccabees  "  is 
discontinuous  and  fragmentary.  Again,  there  is  no  work  on  Egypt 
corresponding  to  the  "  Syriaca  "  of  Appian.  The  chronology,  more- 
over, is  in  confusion,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Ptolemies  adopted  no 
era,  only  dating  their  coins  in  some  instances  by  their  regnal  years; 
so  that  the  exactness  which  an  era  furnishes  is  wanting.  Some  im- 
portant details  with  respect  to  foreign  conquests  and  to  the  internal 
administration  are,  however,  preserved  to  us  in  Inscriptions. 


In  the  history  of  nations  much  depends  on  the  characters  of 
individuals ;  and  Egypt  seems  to  have  been  very  largely  in- 
debted to  the  first  Ptolemy  for  her  extraordinary  prosperity. 
Assigned  the  African  provinces  in  the  division  of  Alexander's 
dominions  after  his  death  (B.C.  323),  he  proceeded  at  once  to 
his  government,  and,  resigning  any  great  ambition,  sought  to 
render  his  own  territory  unassailable,  and  to  make  such  addi- 
tions to  it  as  could  be  attempted  without  much  risk.  It  was 
among  his  special  aims  to  make  Egypt  a  great  naval  power; 
and  in  this  he  succeeded  almost  beyond  his  hopes,  having  after 
many  vicissitudes  established  his  authority  over  Palestine, 
Phoenicia,  and  Coele-Syria ;  and  also  possessed  himself  of  the 
island  of  Cyprus.  Cilicia,  Caria,  and  Pamphylia  were  open  to 
his  attacks,  and  sometimes  subject  to  his  sway.  For  a  time  he 
even  held  important  positions  in  Greece,  e.g.,  Corinth  and 
Sicyon ;  but  he  never  allowed  the  maintenance  of  these  distant 
acquisitions  to  entangle  him  inextricably  in  foreign  wars,  or  to 
endanger  his  home  dominions.  Attacked  twice  in  his  own 
province,  once  by  Perdiccas  (B.C.  321),  and  once  by  Demetrius 
and  Antigonus  (B.C.  306),. he  both  times  repulsed  his  assail- 
ants and  maintained  his  own  territory  intact.  Readily  retiring 
if  danger  threatened,  he  was  always  prompt  to  advance  when 
occasion  offered.  His  combined  prudence  and  vigor  obtained 
the  reward  of  ultimate  success ;  and  his  death  left  Eg^pt  in  pos- 
session of  all  the  more  important  of  his  conquests. 

In  one  quarter  alone  did  Ptolemy  endeavor  to  extend  his 
African  dominion.  The  flourishing  country  of  the  Cyrenaica, 
which  lay  not  far  from  Egypt  upon  the  west,  had  welcomed 
Alexander  as  a  deliverer  from  the  power  of  Persia,  and  had 
been  accepted  by  him  into  alliance.  Ptolemy,  who  coveted  its 
natural  wealth,  and  disliked  the  existence  of  an  independent 
republic  in  his  neighborhood,  found  an  occasion  in  the  troubles 
which  at  this  time  fell  upon  Cyrene,  to  establish  his  authority 
over  the  whole  region.  At  the  same  time  he  must  have 
brought  under  subjection  the  Libyan  tribes  of  the  district  be- 
tween Egypt  and  the  Cyrenaica,  who  in  former  times  had  been 
dependent  upon  the  native  Egyptian  monarchy,  and  had  sub- 
mitted to  the  Persians  when  Egj'pt  was  conquered  by  Cam- 


The  system  of  government  established  by  Ptolemy  Lagi,  so 
far  as  it  can  be  made  out,  was  the  following.  The  monarch 
was  supreme,  and  indeed  absolute,  having  the  sole  direction  of 
affairs  and  the  sole  appointment  of  all  officers.  The  changes, 
however,  made  in  the  internal  administration  were  few.  The 
division  of  the  whole  country  into  nomes  was  maintained ;  and 
most  of  the  old  nomes  were  kept,  a  certain  number  only  being 
subdivided.  Each  was  ruled  by  its  nomarch,  who  received  his 
appointment  from  the  crown,  and  might  at  any  time  be  super- 
seded. The  nomarchs  were  frequently,  perhaps  even  gener- 
ally, native  Egyptians.  They  administered  in  their  provinces 
the  old  Egyptian  laws,  and  maintained  the  old  Egyptian  re- 
ligion. It  was  from  first  to  last  a  part  of  the  established  policy 
of  the  Lagid  monarchs  to  protect  and  honor  the  religion  of 
their  subjects,  which  they  regarded  as  closely  akin  to  their  own, 
and  of  which  they  ostentatiously  made  themselves  the  patrons. 
Ptolemy  Lagi  began  the  practice  of  rebuilding  and  ornament- 
ing the  temples  of  the  Egyptian  gods,  and  paid  particular 
honor  to  the  supposed  incarnations  of  Apis.  The  old  priv- 
ileges of  the  priests,  and  especially  their  exemption  from  land- 
tax,  were  continued ;  and  they  were  allowed  everywhere  the 
utmost  freedom  in  the  exercise  of  every  rite  of  their  religion. 
In  return  for  these  favors  the  priests  were  expected  to  acknowl- 
edge a  quasi-divinity  in  the  Lagid  monarchs,  and  to  perform 
certain  ceremonies  in  their  honor,  both  in  their  lifetime  and 
after  their  decease. 

At  the  same  time  many  exclusive  privileges  were  reserved 
for  the  conquering  race.  The  tranquillity  of  the  country  was 
maintained  by  a  standing  army  composed  almost  exclusively 
of  Greeks  and  Macedonians,  and  officered  wholly  by  members 
of  the  dominant  class.  This  army  was  located  in,  compar- 
atively, a  few  spots,  so  that  its  presence  was  not  much  felt  by 
the  great  bulk  of  the  population.  As  positions  of  authority  in 
the  military  service  were  reserved  for  Graeco-Macedonians,  so 
also  in  the  civil  service  of  the  country  all  offices  of  any  im- 
portance were  filled  up  from  the  same  class.  This  class,  more- 
over, which  was  found  chiefly  in  a  small  number  of  the  chief 
towns,  enjoyed  full  municipal  liberty  in  these  places,  electing 
its  own  officers,  and,  for  the  most  part,  administering  its  own 


affairs  without  interference  on  the  part  of  the  central  govern- 

One  of  the  chief  peculiarities  of  the  early  Lagid  kingdom — 
a  peculiarity  for  which  it  was  indebted  to  its  founder — was  its 
encouragement  of  literature  and  science.  Ptolemy  Lagi  was 
himself  an  author ;  and,  alone  among  the  successors  of  Alex- 
ander, inherited  the  regard  for  men  of  learning  and  research 
which  had  distinguished  his  great  patron.  Following  the  ex- 
ample of  Aristotle,  he  set  himself  to  collect  an  extensive  library, 
and  lodged  it  in  a  building  connected  with  the  royal  palace. 
Men  of  learning  were  invited  by  him  to  take  up  their  residence 
at  Alexandria ;  and  the  "  Museum  "  was  founded,  a  College  of 
Professors,  which  rapidly  drew  to  it  a  vast  body  of  students, 
and  rendered  Alexandria  the  university  of  the  Eastern  world. 
It  was  too  late  in  the  history  of  the  Greek  race  to  obtain,  by  the 
fostering  influence  of  judicious  patronage,  the  creation  of  mas- 
terpieces ;  but  exact  science,  criticism,  and  even  poetry  of  an 
unpretentious  kind,  were  produced ;  and  much  excellent  liter- 
ary work  was  done,  to  the  great  benefit  of  the  moderns.  Eu- 
clid, and  Apollonius  of  Perga,  in  mathematics ;  Philetas,  Calli- 
machus,  and  Apollonius  of  Rhodes,  in  poetry ;  Aristophanes 
of  Byzantium,  and  Aristarchus,  in  criticism ;  Eratosthenes  in 
chronology  and  geography ;  Hipparchus  in  astronomical  sci- 
ence ;  and  Manetho  in  history — adorned  the  Lagid  period,  and 
sufficiently  indicate  that  the  Lagid  patronage  of  learning  was 
not  unfruitful.  Apelles,  too,  and  Antiphilus  produced  many 
of  their  best  pictures  at  the  Alexandrian  court. 

The  character  of  Ptolemy  Lagi  was  superior  to  that  of  most 
of  the  princes  who  were  his  contemporaries.  In  an  age  of 
treachery  and  violence,  he  appears  to  have  remained  faithful  to 
his  engagements,  and  to  have  been  rarely  guilty  of  any  blood- 
shed that  was  not  absolutely  necessary  for  his  own  safety  and 
that  of  his  kingdom.  His  mode  of  life  was  simple  and  unos- 
tentatious. He  was  a  brave  soldier,  and  never  scrupled  to  in- 
cur personal  danger.  The  generosity  of  his  temper  was 
evinced  by  his  frequently  setting  his  prisoners  free  without 
ransom.  In  his  domestic  relations  he  was,  however,  unhappy. 
He  married  two  wives,  Euridyce,  the  daughter  of  Antipater, 
whom  he  divorced,  and  Berenice,  her  companion.     By  Eury- 


dice  he  had  a  son,  Ptolemy  Ceraunus,  who  should  naturally 
have  been  his  successor ;  but  Berenice  prevailed  on  him  in  his 
old  age  to  prefer  her  son,  Philadelphus ;  and  Ptolemy  Cerau- 
nus, offended,  became  an  exile  from  his  country,  and  an  in- 
triguer against  the  interests  of  his  brother  and  his  other  rel- 
atives. Enmity  and  bloodshed  were  thus  introduced  into  the 
family ;  and  to  that  was  shortly  afterwards  added  the  crime  of 
incest,  a  fatal  cause  of  decay  and  corruption. 

Ptolemy  Lagi  adorned  his  capital  with  a  number  of  great 
works.  The  principal  of  these  were  the  royal  palace,  the  Mu- 
seum, the  lofty  Pharos,  upon  the  island  which  formed  the  port, 
the  mole  or  causeway,  nearly  a  mile  in  length  (Heptastadium), 
which  connected  this  island  with  the  shore,  the  Soma  or  mauso- 
leum, containing  the  body  of  Alexander,  the  temple  of  Serapis 
(completed  by  his  son,  Philadelphus),  and  the  Hippodrome  or 
great  race-course.  He  Hkewise  rebuilt  the  inner  chamber  of 
the  grand  temple  at  Karnak,  and  probably  repaired  many  other 
Egyptian  buildings.  After  a  reign  of  forty  years,  having  at- 
tained to  the  advanced  age  of  eighty-four,  he  died  in  Alexan- 
dria, B.C.  283,  leaving  his  crown  to  his  son,  Philadelphus,  the 
eldest  of  his  children  by  Berenice,  whom  he  had  already  two 
years  before  associated  with  him  in  the  kingdom. 

Ptolemy  H.,  surnamed  Philadelphus,  was  born  at  Cos,  B.C. 
309,  and  was  consequently  twenty-six  years  of  age  at  the  com- 
mencement of  his  sole  reign.  He  inherited  his  father's  love 
for  literature  and  genius  for  administration,  but  not  his  mili- 
tary capacity.  Still,  he  did  not  abstain  altogether  even  from 
aggressive  wars,  but  had  an  eye  to  the  events  which  were  pass- 
ing in  other  countries,  and  sought  to  maintain  by  his  arms  the 
balance  of  power  established  in  his  father's  lifetime.  His  chief 
wars  were  with  the  rebel  king  of  Cyrene,  his  half-brother, 
Magas ;  with  Antiochus  I.  and  Antiochus  H.,  kings  of  Syria ; 
and  with  Antigonus  Gonatas,  king  of  Macedon.  They  occu- 
pied the  space  of  about  twenty  years,  from  B.C.  269  to  249. 
Philadelphus  was  fairly  successful  in  them,  excepting  that  he 
was  forced,  as  the  result  of  his  struggle  with  Magas,  to  ac- 
knowledge the  independence  of  that  monarch. 

The  home  administration  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  was  in 
all  respects  eminently  successful.    To  him  belongs  the  credit 


of  developing  to  their  fullest  extent  the  commercial  advantages 
which  the  position  of  Egypt  throws  open  to  her,  and  of  bring- 
ing by  these  means  her  material  prosperity  to  its  culminating 
point.  By  reopening  the  canal  uniting  the  Red  Sea  with  the 
Nile — a  construction  of  the  greatest  of  the  Ramesside  king^ 
— and  building  the  port  of  Arsinoe  on  the  site  of  the  modem 
Suez,  he  united  the  East  and  West,  allowing  the  merchandise 
of  either  region  to  reach  the  other  by  water  carriage.  As  this, 
however,  owing  to  the  dangers  of  the  Red  Sea  navigation,  was 
not  enough,  he  constructed  two  other  harbors,  and  founded 
two  other  cities,  each  called  Berenice,  on  the  eastern  African 
coast,  one  nearly  in  lat.  24°,  the  other  still  farther  to  the  south, 
probably  about  lat.  13°.  A  high-road  was  opened  from  the 
northern  Berenice  to  Coptos  on  the  Nile  (near  Thebes),  and 
the  merchandise  of  India,  Arabia,  and  Ethiopia  flowed  to  Eu- 
rope for  several  centuries  chiefly  by  this  route.  The  Ethiopian 
trade  was  particularly  valuable.  Not  only  was  ivory  imported 
largely  from  this  region,  but  the  elephant  was  hunted  on  a 
large  scale,  and  the  hunters'  captures  were  brought  alive  into 
Egypt,  where  they  were  used  in  the  military  service.  Ptole- 
mais,  in  lat.  18°  40',  was  the  emporium  for  this  traffic. 

The  material  prosperity  of  Egypt  which  these  measures  in- 
sured was  naturally  accompanied  by  a  flourishing  condition 
of  the  revenue.  Philadelphus  is  said  to  have  derived  from 
Egypt  alone,  without  counting  the  tribute  in  grain,  an  annual 
income  of  14,800  talents  (more  than  three  and  a  half  millions 
sterling),  or  as  much  as  Darius  Hystaspis  obtained  from  the 
whole  of  his  vast  empire.  The  revenue  was  raised  chiefly  from 
customs,  but  was  supplemented  from  other  sources.  The  re- 
moter provinces,  Palestine,  Phoenicia,  Cyprus,  etc.,  seem  to 
have  paid  a  tribute ;  but  of  the  mode  of  its  assessment  we  know 

The  military  force  which  Philadelphus  maintained  is  said  to 
have  amounted  to  200,000  foot  and  40,000  horse,  besides  ele- 
phants and  war-chariots.  He  had  also  a  fleet  of  1500  vessels, 
many  of  which  were  of  extraordinary  size.  The  number  of 
rowers  required  to  man  these  vessels  must  have  exceeded, 
rather  than  fallen  short  of,  600,000  men. 

The  fame  of  Philadelphus  depends,  however,  far  less  upon 


his  military  exploits,  or  his  talents  for  organization  and  ad- 
ministration, than  upon  his  efforts  in  the  cause  of  learning. 
In  this  respect,  if  in  no  other,  he  surpassed  his  father,  and  de- 
serves to  be  regarded  as  the  special  cause  of  the  literary  glories 
of  his  country.  The  library  which  the  first  Ptolemy  had 
founded  was  by  the  second  so  largely  increased  that  he  has 
often  been  regarded  as  its  author.  The  minor  library  of  the 
Serapeium  was  entirely  of  his  collection.  Learned  men  were 
invited  to  his  court  from  every  quarter ;  and  literary  works  of 
the  highest  value  were  undertaken  at  his  desire  or  under  his 
patronage.  Among  these  the  most  important  were  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  into  the  Greek  language  (which 
was  commenced  in  his  reign  and  continued  under  several  of 
his  successors),  and  the  "  History  of  Egypt,"  derived  from  the 
native  records,  which  was  composed  in  Greek  during  his  reign 
by  the  Egyptian  priest  Manetho.  Philadelphus  also  patron- 
ized painting  and  sculpture,  and  adorned  his  capital  with 
architectural  works  of  great  magnificence. 

In  his  personal  character,  Philadelphus  presents  an  unfa- 
vorable contrast  to  his  father.  Immediately  upon  attaining  the 
throne  he  banished  Demetrius  Phalereus,  for  the  sole  offense 
that  he  had  advised  Ptolemy  Lagi  against  altering  the  succes- 
sion. Shortly  afterwards  he  put  to  death  two  of  his  brothers. 
He  divorced  his  first  wife  Arsinoe,  the  daughter  of  Lysima- 
chus,  and  banished  her  to  Coptos  in  Upper  Egypt,  in  order 
that  he  might  contract  an  incestuous  marriage  with  his  full 
sister,  Arsinoe,  who  had  been  already  married  to  his  half- 
brother  Ceraunus.  To  this  princess,  who  bore  him  no  chil- 
dren, he  continued  tenderly  attached,  taking  in  reference  to 
her  the  epithet  "  Philadelphus,"  and  honoring  her  by  giving 
her  name  to  several  of  the  cities  which  he  built,  and  erecting 
to  her  memory  a  magnificent  monument  at  Alexandria,  which 
was  known  as  the  Arsinoeum.  Nor  did  he  long  survive  her 
decease.  He  died  in  B.C.  247,  of  disease,  at  Alexandria,  hav- 
ing lived  sixty-two  years,  and  reigned  thirty-eight,  or  thirty- 
six  from  the  death  of  his  father. 

Ptolemy  III.,  surnamed  Euergetes  ("  the  Benefactor  "),  the 
eldest  son  of  Philadelphus  by  his  first  wife,  succeeded  him. 
This  prince  was  the  most  enterprising  of  all  the  Lagid  mon- 


archs ;  and  under  him  Eg>'pt,  which  had  hitherto  maintained 
a  defensive  attitude,  became  an  aggressive  power,  and  accom- 
plished important  conquests.  The  greater  part  of  these  were, 
it  is  true,  retained  for  only  a  few  years ;  but  others  were  more 
permanent,  and  became  real  additions  to  the  empire.  The 
empire  obtained  now  its  greatest  extension,  comprising,  be- 
sides Eg\'pt  and  Nubia,  the  Cyrenaica,  which  was  recovered 
by  the  marriage  of  Berenice,  daughter  and  heiress  of  Magas, 
to  Euergetes;  parts  of  Ethiopia,  especially  the  tract  about 
Adule ;  a  portion  of  the  opposite  or  western  coast  of  Arabia ; 
Palestine,  Phoenicia,  and  Ccele-Syria;  Cyprus,  Cilicia,  Pam- 
phylia,  Lycia,  Caria,  and  Ionia ;  the  Cyclades ;  and  a  portion 
of  Thrace,  including  the  city  of  Lysimacheia  in  the  Chersonese. 

Friendly  relations  had  been  established  with  Rome  by  Ptol- 
emy Philadelphus,  as  early  as  B.C.  273.  Euergetes  continued 
this  policy,  but  declined  the  assistance  which  the  g^eat  republic 
was  anxious  to  lend  him  in  his  Syrian  wars.  It  would  seem 
that  the  ambitious  projects  of  Rome  and  her  aspirations  after 
universal  dominion  were  already,  at  the  least,  suspected. 

Like  his  father  and  grandfather,  Euergetes  was  a  patron 
of  art  and  letters.  He  added  largely  to  the  great  library  at 
Alexandria,  collecting  the  best  manuscripts  from  all  quarters, 
sometimes  by  very  questionable  means.  The  poet,  ApoUonius 
Rhodius,  the  geographer  and  chronologist,  Eratosthenes,  and 
the  grammarian  Aristophanes  of  Byzantium,  adorned  his  court. 
Alexandria  does  not  seem  to  have  owed  to  him  many  of  her 
buildings ;  but  he  gratified  his  Egyptian  subjects  by  important 
architectural  works,  as  well  as  by  the  restoration  of  various 
images  of  their  gods,  which  he  had  recovered  in  his  Eastern 

After  a  reign  of  twenty-five  years,  during  which  he  had 
enjoyed  almost  unintemipted  success,  and  had  raised  Eg>-pt 
to  perhaps  the  highest  pitch  of  prosperity  that  she  ever  at- 
tained, Euergetes  died,  according  to  the  best  authority,  by 
a  natural  death ;  though  there  were  not  wanting  persons  to 
ascribe  his  decease  to  the  machinations  of  his  son.  He  left 
behind  him  three  children— Ptolemy,  who  succeeded  him, 
Magas,  and  Arsinoe.  who  became  the  wife  of  her  elder  brother. 

The  glorious  period  of  the  Macedo-Eg>T)tian  history  termi- 


nates  with  Euergetes.  Three  kings  of  remarkable  talent,  and 
of  moderately  good  moral  character,  had  held  the  throne  for 
a  Httle  more  than  a  century  (loi  years),  and  had  rendered 
Egypt  the  most  flourishing  of  the  kingdoms  which  had  arisen 
out  of  the  disruption  of  Alexander's  empire.  They  were  fol- 
lowed by  a  succession  of  wicked  and  incapable  monarchs, 
among  whom  it  is  difficult  to  find  one  who  has  any  claim  to 
our  respect  or  esteem.  Historians  reckon  nine  Ptolemies  after 
Euergetes.  Except  Philometor,  who  was  mild  and  humane, 
Lathyrus,  who  was  amiable  but  weak,  and  Ptolemy  XII. 
(sometimes  called  Dionysus),  who  was  merely  young  and  in- 
competent, they  were  all,  almost  equally,  detestable. 

Ptolemy  IV.,  who  assumed  the  title  of  Philopator  to  disarm 
the  suspicions  which  ascribed  to  him  the  death  of  his  father, 
was  the  eldest  son  of  Euergetes,  and  ascended  the  throne  B.C. 
222.  His  first  acts,  after  seating  himself  upon  the  throne,  were 
the  murder  of  his  mother,  Berenice,  who  had  wished  her 
younger  son  to  obtain  the  succession ;  of  his  brother,  Magas ; 
and  of  his  father's  brother,  Lysimachus.  He  followed  up  these 
outrages  by  quarrelling  with  the  Spartan  refugee  Cleomenes, 
and  driving  him  into  a  revolt,  which  cost  him  and  his  family 
their  lives.  He  then  contracted  an  incestuous  marriage  with 
his  sister,  Arsinoe,  and  abandoning  the  direction  of  affairs  to 
his  minister,  Sosibius,  the  adviser  of  these  measures,  gave 
himself  up  to  a  life  of  intemperance  and  profligacy.  Agathoc- 
lea,  a  professional  singer,  and  her  brother,  Agathocles,  the 
children  of  a  famous  courtesan,  became  his  favorites,  and  ruled 
the  court,  while  Sosibius  managed  the  kingdom.  To  gratify 
these  minions  of  his  pleasures,  Philopator,  about  B.C.  208, 
put  to  death  his  wife,  Arsinoe,  after  she  had  borne  him  an  heir 
to  the  empire. 

The  weakness  of  Philopator,  and  the  mismanagement  of  the 
State  by  Sosibius,  who  was  at  once  incapable  and  wicked,  laid 
the  empire  open  to  attack;  and  it  was  not  long  before  the 
young  king  of  Syria,  Antiochus  III.,  took  advantage  of  the 
condition  of  affairs  to  advance  his  own  pretensions  to  the  pos- 
session of  the  long-disputed  tract  between  Syria  Proper  and 
Egypt.  It  might  have  been  expected  that,  under  the  circum- 
stances, he  would  have  been  successful.     But  the  Egyptian 



forces,  relaxed  though  their  discipline  had  been  by  Sosibius, 
were  still  superior  to  the  Syrians;  and  the  battle  of  Raphia 
(B.C.  217)  was  a  repetition  of  the  lessons  taught  at  Pelusium 
and  Gaza.  The  invader  was  once  more  defeated  upon  the  bor- 
ders, and  by  the  peace  which  followed,  the  losses  of  the  two 
preceding  years  were,  with  one  exception,  recovered. 

The  Syrian  war  was  only  just  brought  to  a  close  when  dis- 
affection showed  itself  among  Philopator's  Eg^'ptian  subjects. 
The  causes  of  their  discontent  are  obscure ;  and  we  are  without 
any  details  as  to  the  course  of  the  struggle.  But  there  is  evi- 
dence that  it  lasted  through  a  considerable  number  of  years, 
and  was  only  brought  to  a  close  after  much  effusion  of  blood 
on  both  sides. 

Notwithstanding  his  inhumanity  and  addiction  to  the  worst 
forms  of  vice,  Philopator  so  far  observed  the  traditions  of  his 
house  as  to  continue  their  patronage  of  letters.  He  lived  on 
familiar  terms  with  the  men  of  learning  who  frequented  his 
court,  and  especially  distinguished  with  his  favor  the  gram- 
marian Aristarchus.  To  show  his  admiration  for  Homer,  he 
dedicated  a  temple  to  him.  He  further  even  engaged,  himself, 
in  literary  pursuits,  composing  tragedies  and  poems  of  various 

Worn  out  prematurely  by  his  excesses,  Philopator  died  at 
about  the  age  of  forty,  after  he  had  held  the  throne  for  seven- 
teen years.  He  left  behind  him  one  only  child,  a  son,  named 
Ptolemy,  the  issue  of  his  marriage  with  Arsinoe.  This  child, 
who  at  the  time  of  his  father's  death  was  no  more  than  five 
years  old,  was  immediately  acknowledged  as  king.  He  reigned 
from  B.C.  205  to  181,  and  is  distinguished  in  history  by  the 
surname  of  Epiphanes.  The  affairs  of  Egypt  during  his  minor- 
ity were,  at  first,  administered  by  the  infamous  Agathocles, 
who,  however,  soon  fell  a  victim  to  the  popular  fury,  together 
with  his  sister,  his  mother,  and  his  whole  family.  The  honest 
but  incompetent  Tlepolemus  succeeded  as  regent ;  but  in  the 
critical  circumstances  wherein  Egypt  was  now  placed  by  the 
league  of  Antiochus  with  Philip  of  Macedon  (see  Book  IV.), 
it  was  felt  that  incompetency  would  be  fatal ;  and  the  impor- 
tant step  was  taken  of  calling  in  the  assistance  of  the  Romans, 
who  sent  M.  Lepidus,  B.C.  201,  to  undertake  the  management 


of  affairs.  Lepidus  saved  Egypt  from  conquest ;  but  was  un- 
able, or  unwilling,  to  obtain  for  her  the  restoration  of  the  terri- 
tory whereof  the  two  spoilers  had  deprived  her  by  their  com- 
bined attack.  Antiochus  succeeded  in  first  deferring  and  then 
evading  the  restoration  of  his  share  of  the  spoil,  while  Philip 
did  not  even  make  a  pretense  of  giving  back  a  single  foot  of 
territory.  Thus  Egypt  lost  in  this  reign  the  whole  of  her  for- 
eign possessions  except  Cyprus  and  the  Cyrenaica — losses 
which  were  never  recovered. 

Lepidus,  on  quitting  Egypt,  B.C.  199,  handed  over  the  ad- 
ministration to  Aristomenes,  the  Acarnanian,  a  man  of  vigor 
and  probity,  who  restored  the  finances,  and  put  fresh  life  into 
the  administration.  But  the  external  were  followed  by  internal 
troubles.  A  revolt  of  the  Egyptians,  and  a  conspiracy  on  the 
part  of  the  general,  Scopas,  showed  the  danger  of  a  long  mi- 
nority, and  induced  the  new  regent  to  curtail  his  own  term  of 
office.  At  the  age  of  fourteen,  Epiphanes  was  declared  of  full 
age,  and  assumed  the  reins  of  government,  B.C.  196. 

But  little  is  known  of  Epiphanes  from  the  time  of  his  as- 
suming the  government.  His  marriage  with  Cleopatra,  the 
daughter  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  which  had  been  arranged  in 
B.C.  199  as  a  portion  of  the  terms  of  peace,  was  not  celebrated 
till  B.C.  193,  when  he  had  attained  the  age  of  seventeen. 
Shortly  after  this  the  monarch  appears  to  have  quarrelled  with 
his  minister  and  late  guardian,  Aristomenes,  whom  he  bar- 
barously removed  by  poison.  A  certain  Polycrates  then  be- 
came his  chief  adviser  and  assisted  him  to  quell  a  second  very 
serious  revolt  on  the  part  of  the  native  Egyptians.  Towards 
the  close  of  his  reign  he  formed  designs  for  the  recovery  of 
Coele-Syria  and  Palestine,  which  he  proposed  to  wrest  from 
Seleucus,  who  had  succeeded  his  father,  Antiochus.  But  be- 
fore he  could  carry  his  designs  into  effect,  he  was  murdered 
by  his  officers,  whom  he  had  alarmed  by  an  unguarded  ex- 
pression, B.C.  181. 

By  his  marriage  with  Cleopatra,  Epiphanes  had  become  the 
father  of  three  children,  two  sons,  both  of  whom  received  the 
name  of  Ptolemy,  and  a  daughter,  called  after  her  mother.  The 
eldest  of  these  children,  who  took  the  surname  of  Philometor, 
succeeded  him,  and  reigned  as  Ptolemy  VI.    His  age  at  his 


accession  was  only  seven,  and  during  his  early  years  he  re- 
mained under  the  regency  of  his  mother,  whose  administration 
was  vigorous  and  successful.  At  her  death,  in  B.C.  173,  the 
young  prince  fell  under  far  inferior  gfuardianshipr-that  of 
Eulaeus  the  eunuch  and  Lenaeus,  ministers  at  once  corrupt  and 
incapable.  These  weak  men,  mistaking  audacity  for  vigor, 
rashly  claimed  from  Antiochus  Epiphanes  the  surrender  of 
Coele-Syria  and  Palestine,  the  nominal  dowry  of  the  late  queen- 
mother,  and,  when  their  demand  was  contemptuously  rejected, 
flew  to  arms.  Their  invasion  of  Syria  quickly  brought  upon 
them  the  vengeance  of  Antiochus,  who  defeated  their  forces 
at  Pelusium,  B.C.  170,  and  would  certainly  have  conquered 
all  Egypt,  had  it  not  been  for  the  interposition  of  the  Romans, 
who  made  him  retire,  and  even  deprived  him  of  all  his  con- 

By  the  timely  aid  thus  given,  Rome  was  brought  into  a  new 
position  with  respect  to  Eg^pt.  Hitherto  she  had  merely  been 
a  friendly  ally,  receiving  more  favors  than  she  conferred. 
Henceforth  she  was  viewed  as  exercising  a  sort  of  protectorate ; 
and  her  right  was  recognized  to  interfere  in  the  internal  troubles 
of  the  kingdom,  and  to  act  as  arbiter  between  rival  princes. 
The  claims  of  such  persons  were  discussed  before  the  Roman 
Senate,  and  the  princes  themselves  went  to  Rome  in  person 
to  plead  their  cause.  The  decision  of  the  Senate  was  not,  in- 
deed, always  implicitly  obeyed;  but  still  Rome  exercised  a 
most  important  influence  from  thfs  time,  not  only  over  the 
external  policy  but  over  the  dynastic  squabbles  of  the 

The  joint  reign  of  the  two  kings,  Philometor  and  Physcon, 
which  commenced  in  B.C.  169,  continued  till  B.C.  165,  when 
the  brothers  quarrelled  and  Philometor  was  driven  into  exile. 
Having  gone  to  Rome  and  implored  assistance  from  the  Sen- 
ate, he  was  re-instated  in  his  kingdom  by  Roman  deputies, 
who  arranged  a  partition  of  the  territory  between  the  brothers, 
which  might  have  closed  the  dispute,  could  Physcon  have 
remained  contented  with  his  allotted  portion.  But  his  ambi- 
tion and  intrigues  caused  fresh  troubles,  which  were,  however, 
quelled  after  a  time  by  the  final  establishment  of  Physcon  as 
king  of  Cyrene  only. 


During  the  continuance  of  the  war  between  the  two  brothers, 
Demetrius  I.,  who  had  become  king  of  Syria,  B.C.  162,  had 
made  an  attempt  to  obtain  possession  of  Cyprus  by  bribing 
the  governor,  and  had  thereby  provoked  the  hostiHty  of  Philo- 
metor.  No  sooner,  therefore,  was  Philometor  free  from  do- 
mestic troubles  than,  resolving  to  revenge  himself,  he  induced 
Alexander  Balas  to  come  forward  as  a  pretender  to  the  Syrian 
crown,  and  lent  him  the  full  weight  of  his  support,  even  giving 
him  his  daughter,  Cleopatra,  in  marriage,  B.C.  150.  But  the 
ingratitude  of  Balas,  after  he  had  obtained  the  throne  by  Ptol- 
emy's aid,  alienated  his  patron.  The  Egyptian  king,  having 
with  some  difficulty  escaped  a  treacherous  attempt  upon  his 
life,  passed  over  to  the  side  of  the  younger  Demetrius,  gave 
Cleopatra  in  marriage  to  him,  and  succeeded  in  seating  him 
upon  the  throne.  In  the  last  battle,  however,  which  was  fought 
near  Antioch,  he  was  thrown  from  his  horse,  and  lost  his  life, 
B.C.  146. 

Ptolemy  Philometor  left  behind  him  three  children,  the  issue 
of  his  marriage  with  his  full  sister,  Cleopatra,  viz.,  a  son,  Ptol- 
emy, who  was  proclaimed  king,  under  the  name  of  Eupator 
(or  Philopator,  according  to  Lepsius),  and  two  daughters,  both 
called  Cleopatra,  the  elder  married  first  to  Alexander  Balas 
and  then  to  Demetrius  II.,  the  younger  still  a  virgin.  Eupator, 
after  reigning  a  few  days,  was  deposed  and  then  murdered  by 
his  uncle,  Physcon,  the  king  of  Cyrene,  who  claimed  and  ob- 
tained the  throne. 

Ptolemy  Physcon,  called  also  Euergetes  II.,  acquired  the 
throne  in  consequence  of  an  arrangement  mediated  by  the 
Romans,  who  stipulated  that  he  should  marry  his  sister  Cleo- 
patra, the  widow  of  his  brother,  Philometor.  Having  become 
king  in  this  way,  his  first  act  was  the  murder  of  his  nephew. 
He  then  proceeded  to  treat  with  the  utmost  severity  all  those 
who  had  taken  part  against  him  in  the  recent  contest,  killing 
some  and  banishing  others.  By  these  measures  he  created  such" 
alarm,  that  Alexandria  became  half  emptied  of  its  inhabitants, 
and  he  was  forced  to  invite  new  colonists  to  repeople  it.  Mean- 
while he  gave  himself  up  to  gluttony  and  other  vices,  and  be- 
came bloated  to  an  extraordinary  degree,  and  so  corpulent  that 
he  could  scarcely  walk.    He  further  repudiated  Cleopatra,  his 


sister,  though  she  had  borne  him  a  son,  Memphitis,  and  took 
to  wife  her  daughter,  called  also  Qeopatra,  the  child  of  his 
brother,  Philometor.  After  a  while  his  cruelties  and  excesses 
disgfusted  the  Alexandrians,  who  broke  out  into  frequent  re- 
volts. Several  of  these  were  put  down ;  but  at  last  Physcon 
was  compelled  to  fly  to  Cyprus,  and  his  sister  Cleopatra  was 
made  queen,  B.C.  130. 

On  the  re-establishment  of  Physcon  in  his  kingdom,  he 
resolved  to  revenge  himself  on  Demetrius  for  the  support 
which  he  had  given  to  Cleopatra.  He  therefore  brought  for- 
ward the  pretender  Alexander  Zabinas,  and  lent  him  such  sup- 
port that  he  shortly  became  king  of  Syria,  B.C.  126.  But  Za- 
binas, like  his  reputed  father,  Balas,  proved  ungrateful;  and 
the  offended  Physcon  proceeded  to  pull  down  the  throne  which 
he  had  erected,  joining  Antiochus  Grypus  against  Zabinas,  and 
giving  him  his  daughter  Tryphaena,  in  marriage.  The  result 
was  the  ruin  of  Zabinas,  and  the  peaceful  establishment  of 
Grypus,  with  whom  Physcon  lived  on  friendly  terms  during 
the  remainder  of  his  life. 

Physcon  died  in  B.C.  117,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  eldest 
son,  Ptolemy  IX.,  commonly  distinguished  by  the  epithet  of 
Lathyrus.  Egypt  now  lost  the  Cyrenaica,  which  was  be- 
queathed by  Physcon  to  his  natural  son,  Apion,  who  at  his 
death  made  it  over  to  the  Romans.  The  ties  which  bound 
Cyprus  to  Egypt  also  became  relaxed,  for  Lathyrus,  and  his 
brother,  Alexander,  alternately  ^held  it,  almost  as  a  separate 
kingdom.  The  reign  of  Lathyrus,  which  commenced  B.C. 
117,  did  not  terminate  till  B.C.  81,  thus  covering  a  space  of 
thirty-six  years;  but  during  one-half  of  this  time  he  was  a 
fugitive  from  Egypt,  ruling  only  over  Cyprus,  while  his 
brother  took  his  place  at  Alexandria.  We  must  divide  his 
reign  into  three  periods — the  first  lasting  from  B.C.  117  to 
107,  a  space  of  ten  years,  during  which  he  was  nominal  king 
of  Egypt  under  the  tutelage  of  his  mother ;  the  second,  from 
B.C.  107  to  89,  eighteen  years,  which  he  spent  in  Cyprus ;  and 
the  third,  from  B.C.  89  to  81,  eight  years,  during  which  he 
ruled  Egypt  as  actual  and  sole  monarch. 

Lathyrus  left  behind  him  one  legitimate  child  only,  Berenice, 
his  daughter  by  Selene,  who  succeeded  him  upon  the  throne. 


and  remained  for  six  months  sole  monarch.  She  was  then 
married  to  her  first  cousin,  Ptolemy  Alexander  II.,  the  son  of 
Ptolemy  Alexander  L,  who  claimed  the  crown  of  Egypt  under 
the  patronage  of  the  great  Sulla.  It  was  agreed  that  they 
should  reign  conjointly;  but  within  three  weeks  of  his  mar- 
riage, Alexander  put  his  wife  to  death.  This  act  so  enraged  the 
Alexandrians  that  they  rose  in  revolt  against  the  murderer 
and  slew  him  in  the  public  gymnasium,  B.C.  80. 

A  time  of  trouble  followed.  The  succession  was  disputed 
between  two  illegitimate  sons  of  Lathyrus,  two  legitimate  sons 
of  Selene,  the  sister  of  Lathyrus,  by  Antiochus  Eusebes,  king 
of  Syria,  her  third  husband,  and  probably  other  claimants. 
Roman  influence  was  wanted  to  decide  the  contest,  and  Rome 
for  some  reason  or  other  hung  back.  A  further  disintegration 
of  the  empire  was  the  consequence.  The  younger  of  the  two 
sons  of  Ptolemy  Lathyrus  seized  Cyprus,  and  made  it  a  sep- 
arate kingdom.  The  elder  seems  to  have  possessed  himself 
of  a  part  of  Egypt.  Other  parts  of  Egypt  appear  to  have  fallen 
into  the  power  of  a  certain  Alexander,  called  by  some  writers 
Ptolemy  Alexander  III.,  who  was  driven  out  after  some  years, 
and,  flying  to  Tyre,  died  there  and  bequeathed  Egypt  to  the 

Ultimately  the  whole  of  Egypt  passed  under  the  sway  of  the 
elder  of  the  two  illegitimate  sons  of  Lathyrus,  who  took  the 
titles  of  Neos  Dionysos  ("  the  New  Bacchus  "),  Philopator,  and 
Philadelphus,  but  was  most  commonly  known  as  Auletes,  the 
"  Flute-player."  The  years  of  his  reign  were  counted  from 
B.C.  80,  though  he  can  scarcely  have  become  king  of  all  Egypt 
till  fifteen  years  later,  B.C.  65.  It  was  his  great  object  during 
the  earlier  portion  of  his  reign  to  get  himself  acknowledged 
by  the  Romans ;  but  this  he  was  not  able  to  effect  till  B.C.  59, 
the  year  of  Caesar's  consulship,  when  his  bribes  were  effectual. 
But  his  orgies  and  his  "  fluting  "  had  by  this  time  disgusted 
the  Alexandrians;  so  that,  when  he  increased  the  weight  of 
taxation  in  order  to  replenish  his  treasury,  exhausted  by  the 
vast  sums  he  had  spent  in  bribery,  they  rose  against  him,  and 
after  a  short  struggle,  drove  him  from  his  kingdom.  Auletes 
fled  to  Rome ;  and  the  Alexandrians  placed  upon  the  throne 
his  two  daughters,  Tryphsena  and  Berenice,  of  whom  the  for- 



mer  lived  only  a  year,  while  the  latter  retained  the  crown  till 
the  restoration  of  her  father,  B.C.  55.  He  returned  under  the 
protection  of  Pompey,  who  sent  Gabinius  at  the  head  of  a 
strong  Roman  force  to  reinstate  him.  The  Alexandrians  were 
compelled  to  submit ;  and  Auletes  immediately  executed  Be- 
renice, who  had  endeavored  to  retain  the  crown  and  had  resist- 
ed his  return  in  arms.  Auletes  then  reigned  about  three  years 
and  a  half  in  tolerable  peace,  under  the  protection  of  a  Roman 
garrison.  He  died  B.C.  51,  having  done  as  much  as  in  him 
lay  to  degrade  and  ruin  his  country. 

Ptolemy  Auletes  left  behind  him  four  children — Qeopatra, 
aged  seventeen ;  a  boy,  Ptolemy,  aged  thirteen ;  another  boy, 
called  also  Ptolemy ;  and  a  girl,  called  Arsinoe.  The  last  two 
were  of  very  tender  age.  He  left  the  crown,  under  approval 
of  the  Romans,  to  Cleopatra  and  the  elder  Ptolemy,  who  were 
to  rule  conjointly,  and  to  be  married  when  Ptolemy  was  of  full 
age.  These  directions  were  carried  out;  but  the  imperious 
spirit  of  Cleopatra  ill  brooked  any  control,  and  it  was  not  long 
ere  she  quarrelled  with  her  boy-husband,  and  endeavored  to 
deprive  him  of  the  kingdom.  War  followed ;  and  Qeopatra, 
driven  to  take  refuge  in  Syria,  was  fortunate  enough  to  secure 
the  protection  of  Julius  Caesar,  whom  she  fascinated  by  her 
charms,  B.C.  48.  With  his  aid  she  obtained  the  victory  over 
her  brother,  who  perished  in  the  struggle.  Cleopatra  was  now 
established  sole  queen,  B.C.  47,  but  on  condition  that  she 
married  in  due  time  her  other  brother,  the  younger  son  of 
Auletes.  Observing  the  letter  of  this  agreement,  Qeopatra 
violated  its  spirit  by  having  her  second  husband,  shortly  after 
the  wedding,  removed  by  poison,  B.C.  44.  The  remainder  of 
'Cleopatra's  reign  was,  almost  to  its  close,  prosperous.  Pro- 
tected by  Julius  Caesar  during  his  lifetime,  she  succeeded  soon 
after  his  decease  in  fascinating  Antony,  B.C.  41,  and  making 
him  her  slave  for  the  rest  of  his  lifetime.  The  details  of  this 
period  belong  to  Roman  rather  than  to  Egyptian  history ;  and 
will  be  treated  in  the  last  book  of  this  Manual.  It  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  note  here  that  the  latest  descendant  of  the  Ptolemies 
retained  the  royal  title  to  the  end,  and  showed  something  of  the 
spirit  of  a  queen  in  preferring  death  to  captivity,  and  perishing 
upon  the  capture  of  her  capital,  B.C.  30. 


Part  III. 

History  of  Macedonia,  and  of  Greece ,  front  the  Death  of  Alexander 
to  the  Roman  Conquest,  B.  C.  J2j  to  146.  * 

Grecian  history  had  been  suspended  during  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander's career  of  conquest.  A  slight  disturbance  of  the  general 
tranquillity  had  indeed  occurred,  when  Alexander  plunged  into 
the  unknown  countries  beyond  the  Zagros  range,  by  the  move- 
ment against  Antipater,  which  the  Spartan  king,  Agis,  orig- 
inated in  B.C.  330.  But  the  disturbance  was  soon  quelled. 
Agis  was  defeated  and  slain ;  and  from  this  time  the  whole  of 
Greece  remained  perfectly  tranquil  until  the  news  came  of  Al- 
exander's premature  demise  during  the  summer  of  B.C.  323. 
Then,  indeed,  hope  rose  high ;  and  a  great  effort  was  made  to 
burst  the  chains  which  bound  Greece  to  the  footstool  of  the 
Macedonian  kings,  Athens,  under  Demosthenes  and  Hyper- 
ides,  taking,  as  was  natural,  the  lead  in  the  struggle  for  free- 
dom. A  large  confederacy  was  formed ;  and  the  Lamian  War 
was  entered  upon  in  the  confident  expectation  that  the  effect 
would  be  the  liberation  of  Greece  from  the  yoke  of  her  op- 
pressor. But  the  result  disappointed  these  hopes.  After  a 
bright  gleam  of  success,  the  confederate  Greeks  were  com- 
pletely defeated  at  Crannon,  B.C.  322,  and  the  yoke  of  Mace- 
donia was  riveted  upon  them  more  firmly  than  ever. 

The  position  of  Antipater,  as  supreme  ruler  of  Macedonia, 
was  far  from  being  safe  and  assured.  The  female  members  of 
the  Macedonian  royal  family — Olympias,  the  widow  of  Philip ; 
Cleopatra,  her  daughter;  Cynane,  daughter  of  Philip  by  an 
Illyrian  mother;    and  Eurydice,  daughter  of  Cynane  by  her 

*  Sources.  The  sources  for  this  history  are  nearly  the  same  as  those 
which  have  been  cited  for  the  contemporary  history  of  Syria  and  Egypt. 
The  chief  ancient  authorities  are  Diodorus  Siculus  (books  xix.-xxxii., 
the  first  two  of  which  only  are  complete),  Polybius,  Justin,  Plutarch 
("  Vitae  Demetrii,  Pyrrhi,  JEmilii  Paulli,  Agidis,  Cleomenis,  Arati,  Phil- 
opoemonis  et  Flaminini"),  and  Livy  (books  xxvi.-xlv.,  and  Epitomes  of 
books  xlvi.-lii.).  To  these  may  be  added,  for  the  Macedonian  chronol- 
ogy, Eusebius  ("  Chronicorum  Canonum  liber  prior,"  cxxxviii.),  and 
for  occasional  facts  in  the  history,  Pausanias. 

.^^*>|»;  -   .':'^A::*:'fi^^-ii 




Photogravure  from  a  section  of  the  original  painting  by  Otto  KniHe. 

In  this  section  of  Knilie's  painting  Socrates  and  Plato  are  shown  surrounded 
by  their  friends  and  disciples. 


husband  Amyntas  (himself  a  first  cousin  of  Alexander) — were, 
one  and  all,  persons  of  ability  and  ambition,  who  saw  with 
extreme  dissatisfaction  the  aggrandizement  of  the  generals  of 
Alexander  and  the  low  condition  into  which  the  royal  power 
had  fallen,  shared  between  an  infant  and  an  imbecile.  Dissatis- 
fied, moreover,  with  their  own  positions  and  prospects,  they 
commenced  intrigues  for  the  purpose  of  improving  them. 
Olympias  first  offered  the  hand  of  Cleopatra  to  Leonnatus, 
who  was  to  have  turned  against  Antipater,  if  he  had  been  suc- 
cessful in  his  Grecian  expedition.  When  the  death  of  Leon- 
natus  frustrated  this  scheme,  Olympias  cast  her  eyes  farther 
abroad,  and  fixed  on  Perdiccas  as  the  chief  to  whom  she  would 
betroth  her  daughter.  Meanwhile,  Cynane  boldly  crossed  over 
to  Asia  with  Eurydice,  and  offered  her  in  marriage  to  Philip 
Arrhidaeus,  the  nominal  king.  To  gratify  Olympias,  who  hated 
these  members  of  the  royal  house,  Perdiccas  put  Cynane  to 
death ;  and  he  would  probably  have  likewise  removed  Eu- 
rydice, had  not  the  soldiers,  exasperated  at  the  mother's  mur- 
der, compelled  him  to  allow  the  marriage  of  the  daughter  with 
Philip.  Meanwhile,  he  consented  to  Olympias's  schemes,  pre- 
pared to  repudiate  his  wife,  Nicaea,  the  daughter  of  Antipater, 
and  hoped  with  the  aid  of  his  friend,  Eumenes,  to  make  himself 
master  of  the  whole  of  Alexander's  empire.  (See  Second 

The  designs  of  Perdiccas,  and  his  intrigues  with  Olympias. 
having  been  discovered  by  Antigonus,  and  the  life  of  that  chief 
being  in  danger  from  Perdiccas  in  consequence,  he  fled  to 
Europe  in  the  course  of  B.C.  322,  and  informed  Antipater  and 
Craterus  of  their  peril.  Fully  appreciating  the  importance  of 
the  intelligence,  those  leaders  at  once  concluded  a  league  with 
Ptolemy,  and  in  the  spring  of  B.C.  321  invaded  Asia  for  the 
purpose  of  attacking  their  rival.  Here  they  found  Eumenes 
prepared  to  resist  them ;  and  so  great  was  the  ability  of  that 
general,  that,  though  Perdiccas  had  led  the  greater  portion  of 
his  forces  against  Egypt,  he  maintained  the  war  successfully, 
defeating  and  killing  Craterus,  and  holding  Antipater  in  check. 
But  the  murder  of  Perdiccas  by  his  troops,  and  their  fraterni- 
zation with  their  opponents,  changed  the  whole  face  of  affairs. 
Antipater  found  himself,  without  an  effort,  master  of  the  situa- 


tion.  Proclaimed  sole  regent  by  the  soldiers,  he  took  the  cus- 
tody of  the  royal  persons,  re-distributed  the  satrapies  (see 
Second  Period),  and,  returning  into  Macedonia,  held  for  about 
two  years  the  first  position  in  the  empire.  He  was  now,  how- 
ever, an  old  man,  and  his  late  campaigns  had  probably  shaken 
him  ;  at  any  rate,  soon  after  his  return  to  Europe,  he  died,  B.C. 
318,  leaving  the  regency  to  his  brother  officer,  the  aged  Polys- 

The  disappointment  of  Cassander,  the  elder  of  the  two  sur- 
viving sons  of  Antipater,  produced  the  second  great  war  be- 
tween the  generals  of  Alexander.  Cassander,  having  begun 
to  intrigue  against  Polysperchon,  was  driven  from  Macedonia 
by  the  regent,  and,  flying  to  Antigonus,  induced  him  to  em- 
brace his  cause.  The  league  followed  between  Antigonus, 
Ptolemy,  and  Cassander  on  the  one  hand,  and  Polysperchon 
and  Eumenes  on  the  other  (see  Second  Period),  Antigonus 
undertaking  to  contend  with  Eumenes  in  Asia,  while  Cassan- 
der aflforded  employment  to  Polysperchon  in  Europe. 

In  the  war  which  ensued  between  Cassander  and  Polys- 
perchon, the  former  proved  eventually  superior.  Polysper- 
chon had  on  his  side  the  influence  of  Olympias,  which  was 
great;  and  his  proclamation  of  freedom  to  the  Greeks  was 
a  judicious  step,  from  which  he  derived  considerable  advan- 
tage. But  neither  as  a  soldier  nor  as  a  statesman  was  he  Cas- 
sander's  equal.  He  lost  Athens  by  an  imprudent  delay,  and 
failed  against  Megalopolis  through  want  of  military  ability. 
His  policy  in  allowing  Olympias  to  gratify  her  hatreds  with- 
out let  or  hindrance  was  ruinous  to  his  cause,  by  thoroughly 
alienating  the  Macedonians.  Cassander 's  triumph  in  B.C.  316 
reduced  him  to  a  secondary  position,  transferring  the  supreme 
authority  in  Macedonia  to  his  rival. 

The  reign  of  Cassander  over  Macedonia,  which  now  com- 
menced, lasted  from  B.C.  316  to  296,  a  period  of  twenty  years. 
The  talents  of  this  prince  are  unquestionable,  but  his  moral 
conduct  fell  below  that  of  even  the  majority  of  his  contempo- 
raries, which  was  sufficiently  reprehensible.  His  bad  faith 
towards  Olympias  was  followed,  within  a  few  years,  by  the 
murders  of  Roxana  and  the  infant  Alexander,  by  complicity  in 
the  murder  of  Hercules,  the  illegitimate  son  of  Alexander  the 



Great,  and  by  treacherj'  towards  Polysperchon,  who  was  first 
seduced  into  crime  and  then  defrauded  of  his  reward.  Cas- 
sander,  however,  was  a  clever  statesman,  a  good  general,  and  a 
brave  soldier.  His  first  step  on  obtaining  possession  of  Mace- 
donia was  to  marry  Thessalonice,  the  sister  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  and  thus  to  connect  himself  with  the  family  of  the  con- 
queror. Next,  fearing  the  ambition  of  Antigonus,  who,  af- 
ter his  victory  over  Eumenes,  aspired  to  rule  the  whole  em- 
pire (see  Second  Period),  he  entered  into  the  league  of  the 
satraps  against  that  powerful  commander,  and  bore  his  part  in 
the  great  war,  which,  commencing  B.C.  315,  on  the  return  of 
Antigonus  from  the  East,  terminated  B.C.  301,  at  the  battle  of 
Ipsus.  In  this  war  Cassander,  though  he  displayed  unceasing 
activity,  and  much  ability  for  intrigue,  was  on  the  whole  unsuc- 
cessful ;  and  he  would  probably  have  lost  Greece  and  Mace- 
donia to  his  powerful  adversary,  had  not  the  advance  of  Seleu- 
cus  from  Babylon  and  the  defeat  of  Antigonus  at  Ipsus  saved 

Cassander  did  not  live  long  to  enjoy  the  tranquillity  which 
the  defeat  and  death  of  Antigonus  at  Ipsus  brought  him.  He 
died  B.C.  298,  three  years  after  Ipsus,  leaving  the  crown  to  the 
eldest  of  his  three  sons  by  Thessalonice,  Philip.  This  prince 
was  carried  off  by  sickness  before  he  had  reigned  a  year ;  and  the 
Macedonian  dominions  at  his  death  fell  to  Thessalonice,  his 
mother,  who  made  a  division  of  them  between  her  two  sur- 
viving sons,  Antipater  and  Alexander,  assigning  to  the  latter 
Western,  and  to  the  former  Eastern  Macedonia. 

Antipater,  who  regarded  himself  as  wronged  in  the  partition, 
having  wreaked  his  vengeance  on  his  mother  by  causing  her  to 
be  assassinated,  applied  for  aid  to  his  wife's  father,  Lysima- 
chus ;  while  Alexander,  fearing  his  brother's  designs,  called  in 
the  help  of  Pyrrhus  the  Epirote  and  of  Demetrius,  B.C.  297. 
Demetrius,  after  the  defeat  of  Ipsus,  had  still  contrived  to  main- 
tain the  position  of  a  sovereign.  Rejected  at  first  by  Athens, 
he  had  besieged  and  taken  that  city,  had  recovered  possession 
of  Attica,  the  Megarid,  and  g^eat  portions  of  the  Peloponnese, 
and  had  thus  possessed  himself  of  a  considerable  power.  Ap- 
pealed to  by  Alexander,  he  professed  to  embrace  his  cause ;  but 
ere  long  he  took  advantage  of  his  position  to  murder  the  young 


prince,  and  possess  himself  of  his  kingdom.  Antipater  was 
about  the  same  time  put  to  death  by  Lysimachus,  B.C.  294. 

The  kingdom  of  Demetrius  comprised,  not  only  Macedonia, 
but  Thessaly,  Attica,  Megaris,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  Pelo- 
ponnese.  Had  he  been  content  with  these  territories,  he  might 
have  remained  quietly  in  the  possession  of  them,  for  the  fam- 
ilies of  Alexander  the  Great  and  of  Antipater  were  extinct, 
and  the  connection  of  Demetrius  with  Seleucus,  who  had  mar- 
ried his  daughter  (see  Third  Period,  Part  L),  would  have 
rendered  his  neighbors  cautious  of  meddling  with  him.  But 
the  ambition  of  Demetrius  was  insatiate,  and  his  self-confidence 
unbounded.  After  establishing  his  authority  in  Central 
Greece  and  twice  taking  Thebes,  he  made  an  unprovoked  at- 
tack upon  Pyrrhus,  B.C.  290,  from  whom  he  desired  to  wrest 
some  provinces  ceded  to  him  by  the  late  king,  Alexander.  In 
this  attempt  he  completely  failed,  whereupon  he  formed  a  new 
project.  Collecting  a  vast  army,  he  let  it  be  understood  that 
he  claimed  the  entire  dominion  of  his  father,  Antigonus,  and 
was  about  to  proceed  to  its  recovery,  B.C.  288.  Seleucus  and 
Lysimachus,  whom  this  project  threatened,  were  induced,  in 
consequence,  to  encourage  Pyrrhus  to  carry  his  arms  into 
Macedonia  on  the  one  side,  while  Lysimachus  himself  invaded 
it  on  the  other.  Placed  thus  between  two  fires,  and  finding  at 
the  same  time  that  his  soldiers  were  not  to  be  depended  upon, 
Demetrius,  in  B.C.  287,  relinquished  the  Macedonian  throne, 
and  escaped  secretly  to  Demetrias,  the  city  which  he  had  built 
on  the  Pagasean  Gulf  and  had  made  a  sort  of  capital.  From 
hence  he  proceeded  on  the  expedition,  which  cost  him  his  lib- 
erty, against  Asia.     (See  Third  Period,  Part  L) 

On  the  flight  of  Demetrius,  Pyrrhus  of  Epirus  became  king 
of  the  greater  part  of  Macedonia ;  but  a  share  of  the  spoil  was 
at  once  claimed  by  Lysimachus,  who  received  the  tract  adjoin- 
ing his  own  territories.  A  mere  share,  however,  did  not  long 
satisfy  the  Macedonian  chieftain.  Finding  that  the  rule  of  an 
Epirotic  prince  was  distasteful  to  the  Macedonians,  he  con- 
trived after  a  little  while  to  pick  a  quarrel  with  his  recent  ally, 
and  having  invaded  his  Macedonian  territories,  forced  him  to 
relinquish  them  and  retire  to  his  own  country,  after  a  reign 
which  lasted  less  than  a  year. 


By  the  success  of  Lysimachus,  Macedonia  became  a  mere 
appendage  to  a  large  kingdom,  which  reached  from  the  Halys 
to  the  Pindus  range,  its  centre  being  Thrace,  and  its  capital 
Lysimacheia  in  the  Chersonese.  These  circumstances  might 
not  by  themselves  have  alienated  the  Macedonians,  though 
they  could  scarcely  have  failed  after  a  time  to  arouse  discon- 
tent ;  but  when  Lysimachus,  after  suffering  jealousy  and  dis- 
sension to  carry  ruin  into  his  own  family,  proceeded  to  acts  of 
tyranny  and  violence  towards  his  nobles  and  other  subjects, 
these  last  called  on  Seleucus  Nicator  to  interfere  for  their  pres- 
ervation ;  and  that  monarch,  having  invaded  the  territories  of 
his  neighbor,  defeated  him  in  the  battle  of  Corupedion,  where 
Lysimachus,  fighting  with  his  usual  gallantry,  was  not  only 
beaten  but  slain. 

By  the  victory  of  Conipedion,  Seleucus  Nicator  became 
master  of  the  entire  kingdom  of  Lysimachus,  and,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Egypt,  appeared  to  have  reunited  almost  the  whole 
of  the  dominions  of  Alexander,  But  this  union  was  short- 
lived. Within  a  few  weeks  of  his  victory,  Seleucus  was  mur- 
dered by  Ptolemy  Ceraunus,  the  Egyptian  refugee  whom  he 
had  protected ;  and  the  Macedonians,  indifferent  by  whom  they 
were  ruled,  accepted  the  Egyptian  prince  without  a  murmur. 

The  short  reign  of  Ptolemy  Ceraunus  (B.C.  281  to  279)  was 
stained  by  crimes  and  marked  by  many  imprudences.  Re- 
garding the  two  sons  of  Lysimachus  by  Arsinoe,  his  half-sister, 
as  possible  rivals,  he  persuaded  her  into  a  marriage,  in  order  to 
get  her  children  into  his  power ;  and,  having  prevailed  with  the 
credulous  princess,  first  murdered  her  sons  before  her  eyes,  and 
then  banished  her  to  Samothrace.  Escaping  to  Egypt,  she 
became  the  wife  of  her  brother,  Philadelphus,  and  would  prob- 
ably have  induced  him  to  avenge  her  wrongs,  had  not  the 
crime  of  Ceraunus  received  its  just  punishment  in  another  way. 
A  great  invasion  of  the  Gauls— one  of  those  vast  waves  of  mi- 
gration which  from  time  to  time  sweep  over  the  world— oc- 
curring just  as  Ceraunus  felt  himself  in  secure  possession  of 
his  kingdom,  disturbed  his  ease,  and  called  for  wise  and  vigor- 
ous measures  of  resistance.  Ceraunus  met  the  crisis  with  suf- 
ficient courage,  but  with  a  complete  absence  of  prudent  coun- 
sel.    Instead  of  organizing  a  united  resistance  to  a  common 


enemy,  or  conciliating  a  foe  whom  he  was  too  weak  to  oppose 
singly,  he  both  exasperated  the  Gauls  by  a  contemptuous  mes- 
sage and  refused  the  proffers  of  assistance  which  he  received 
from  his  neighbors.  Opposing  the  unaided  force  of  Macedon 
to  their  furious  onset,  he  was  completely  defeated  in  a  great 
battle,  B.C.  279,  and,  falling  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  was 
barbarously  put  to  death.  The  Gauls  then  ravaged  Mace- 
donia far  and  wide ;  nor  was  it  till  B.C.  277  that  Macedonia  once 
more  obtained  a  settled  government. 

On  the  retirement  of  the  Gauls,  Antipater,  the  nephew  of 
Cassander,  came  forward  for  the  second  time,  and  was  accepted 
as  king  by  a  portion,  at  any  rate,  of  the  Macedonians.  But  a 
new  pretender  soon  appeared  upon  the  scene.  Antigonus 
Gonatas,  the  son  of  Demetrius  Poliorcetes,  who  had  main- 
tained himself  since  that  monarch's  captivity  as  an  independent 
prince  in  Central  or  Southern  Hellas,  claimed  the  throne  once 
filled  by  his  father,  and,  having  taken  into  his  service  a  body  of 
Gallic  mercenaries,  defeated  Antipater  and  made  himself  mas- 
ter of  Macedonia.  His  pretensions  being  disputed  by  Anti- 
ochus  Soter,  the  son  of  Seleucus,  who  had  succeeded  to  the 
throne  of  Syria,  he  engaged  in  war  with  that  prince,  crossing 
into  Asia  and  uniting  his  forces  with  those  of  Nicomedes,  the 
Bithynian  king,  whom  Antiochus  was  endeavoring  to  conquer. 
To  this  combination  Antiochus  was  forced  to  yield ;  reliquish- 
ing  his  claims,  he  gave  his  sister,  Phila,  in  marriage  to  Antigo- 
nus, and  recognized  him  as  king  of  Macedonia.  Antigonus 
upon  this  fully  established  his  power,  repulsing  a  fresh  attack 
of  the  Gauls,  and  recovering  Cassandreia  from  the  cruel  tyrant, 

But  he  was  not  long  left  in  repose.  In  B.C.  274,  Pyrrhus 
finally  quitted  Italy,  having  failed  in  all  his  schemes,  but  having 
made  himself  a  great  reputation.  Landing  in  Epirus  with  a 
scanty  force,  he  found  the  condition  of  Macedonia  and  of 
Greece  favorable  to  his  ambition.  Antigonus  had  no  hold  on 
the  affections  of  his  subjects,  whose  recollections  of  his  father, 
Demetrius,  were  unpleasing.  The  Greek  cities  were,  some  of 
them,  under  tyrants,  others  occupied  against  their  will  by 
Macedonian  garrisons.  Above  all,  Greece  and  Macedonia 
were  full  of  military  adventurers,  ready  to  flock  to  any  stand- 


ard  which  offered  them  a  fair  prospect  of  plunder.  Pyrrhus, 
therefore,  having  taken  a  body  of  Celts  into  his  pay,  declared 
war  against  Antigonus,  B.C.  2^l,  and  suddenly  invaded  Mace- 
donia. Antigonus  gave  him  battle,  but  was  worsted  owing  to 
the  disaffection  of  his  soldiers,  and,  being  twice  defeated,  be- 
came a  fugitive  and  a  wanderer. 

The  victories  of  Pyrrhus,  and  his  son  Ptolemy,  placed  the 
Macedonian  crown  upon  the  brow  of  the  former,  who  might 
not  improbably  have  become  the  founder  of  a  great  power,  if 
he  could  have  turned  his  attention  to  consolidation,  instead  of 
looking  out  for  fresh  conquests.  But  the  arts  and  employ- 
ments of  peace  had  no  charm  for  the  Epirotic  knight-errant. 
Hardly  was  he  settled  in  his  seat,  when,  upon  the  invitation  of 
Cleonymus  of  Sparta,  he  led  an  expedition  into  the  Pelopon- 
nese,  and  attempted  the  conquest  of  that  rough  and  difficult 
region.  Repulsed  from  Sparta,  which  he  had  hoped  to  sur- 
prise, he  sought  to  cover  his  disappointment  by  the  capture  of 
Argos ;  but  here  he  was  still  more  unsuccessful.  Antigonus, 
now  once  more  at  the  head  of  an  army,  watched  the  city,  pre- 
pared to  dispute  its  occupation,  while  the  lately  threatened 
Spartans  hung  upon  the  invader's  rear.  In  a  desperate  at- 
tempt to  seize  the  place  by  night,  the  adventurous  Epirote  was 
first  wounded  by  a  soldier  and  then  slain  by  the  blow  of  a  tile, 
thrown  from  a  house-top  by  an  Argive  woman,  B.C.  271. 

On  the  death  of  Pyrrhus  the  Macedonian  throne  was  recov- 
ered by  Antigonus,  who  commenced  his  second  reign  by  es- 
tablishing his  influence  over  most  of  the  Peloponnese,  after 
which  he  was  engaged  in  a  long  war  with  the  Athenians  (B.C. 
268  to  263),  who  were  supported  by  Sparta  and  by  Egypt. 
These  allies  rendered,  however,  but  little  help;  and  Athens 
must  have  soon  succumbed,  had  not  Antigonus  been  called 
away  to  Macedonia  by  the  invasion  of  Alexander,  son  of  Pyr- 
rhus. This  enterprising  prince  carried,  at  first,  all  before  him, 
and  was  even  acknowledged  as  Macedonian  king;  but  ere 
long,  Demetrius,  the  son  of  Antigonus,  having  defeated  Alex- 
ander near  Derdia,  re-established  his  father's  dominion  over 
Macedon,  and,  invading  Epirus,  succeeded  in  driving  the  Epi- 
rotic monarch  out  of  his  paternal  kingdom.  The  Epirots  soon 
restored  him ;  but  from  this  time  he  remained  at  peace  with 


Antigonus,  who  was  able  once  more  to  devote  his  undivided 
attention  to  the  subjugation  of  the  Greeks.  In  B.C.  263,  he 
took  Athens,  and  rendered  himself  complete  master  of  Attica ; 
and,  in  B.C.  244,  nineteen  years  afterwards,  he  contrived  by  a 
treacherous  stratagem  to  obtain  possession  of  Corinth.  But 
at  this  point  his  successes  ceased.  A  power  had  been  quietly 
growing  up  in  a  corner  of  the  Peloponnese  which  was  to  be- 
come a  counterpoise  to  Macedonia,  and  to  give  to  the  closing 
scenes  of  Grecian  history  an  interest  little  inferior  to  that  which 
had  belonged  to  its  earlier  pages.  The  Achaean  League,  re- 
suscitated from  its  ashes  about  the  time  of  the  invasion  of  the 
Gauls,  B.C.  280,  had  acquired  in  the  space  of  thirty-seven  years 
sufficient  strength  and  consistency  to  venture  on  defying  the 
puissant  king  of  Macedon  and  braving  his  extreme  displeas- 
ure. In  B.C.  243,  Aratus,  the  general  of  the  League  and  in  a 
certain  sense  its  founder,  by  a  sudden  and  well-planned  attack 
surprised  and  took  Corinth;  which  immediately  joined  the 
League,  whereto  it  owed  its  freedom.  This  success  was  fol- 
lowed by  others.  Megara,  Trcezen,  and  Epidaurus  threw  oflf 
their  allegiance  to  Antigonus  and  attached  themselves  to  the 
League  in  the  course  of  the  same  year.  Athens  and  Argos 
were  threatened ;  and  the  League  assumed  an  attitude  of  un- 
mistakable antagonism  to  the  power  and  pretensions  of  Mace- 
don. Antigonus,  grown  timorous  in  his  old  age,  met  the  bold 
aggressions  of  the  League  with  no  overt  acts  of  hostility.  Con- 
tenting himself  with  inciting  the  ^tolians  to  attack  the  new 
power,  he  remained  wholly  on  the  defensive,  neither  attempt- 
ing to  recover  the  lost  towns,  nor  to  retaliate  by  any  invasion 
of  Achgea. 

Antigonus  Gonatas  died  B.C.  239,  at  the  age  of  eighty,  hav- 
ing reigned  in  all  thirty-seven  years.  He  left  his  crown  to  his 
son,  Demetrius  II.,  who  inherited  his  ambition  without  his 
talents.  The  first  acts  of  Demetrius  were  to  form  a  close 
alliance  with  Epirus,  now  under  the  rule  of  Olympias,  Alexan- 
der's widow ;  to  accept  the  hand  of  her  daughter  Phthia,  where- 
by he  offended  his  queen,  Stratonice,  and  through  her  Seleu- 
cus,  the  Syrian  king ;  and  to  break  with  the  ^tolians,  who  were 
seeking  at  this  time  to  deprive  Olympias  of  a  portion  of  her 
dominions.    The  ^tolians,  alarmed,  sought  the  alliance  of  the 



Achaean  League;  and  in  the  war  which  followed,  Demetrius 
was  opposed  by  both  these  important  powers.  He  contrived, 
however,  to  defeat  Aratus  in  Thessaly,  to  reduce  Bceotia,  and 
to  re-establish  Macedonian  ascendancy  as  far  as  the  Isthmus. 
But  this  was  all  that  he  could  effect.  No  impression  was  made 
by  his  arms  on  either  of  the  great  Leagues.  No  aid  was  given 
to  Epirus,  where  the  royal  family  was  shortly  afterwards  ex- 
terminated. Demetrius  was  perhaps  recalled  to  Macedonia 
by  the  aggressive  attitude  of  the  Dardanians,  who  certainly  at- 
tacked him  in  his  later  years,  and  gave  him  a  severe  defeat. 
It  is  thought  by  some  that  he  perished  in  the  battle.  But  this 
is  uncertain. 

The  most  important  fact  of  this  period  was  the  interference, 
now  for  the  first  time,  of  the  Romans  in  the  affairs  of  Greece. 
The  embassy  to  the  ^Etolians,  warning  them  against  interfer- 
ence with  Acarnania,  belongs  probably  to  the  year  B.C.  238 ; 
that  to  the  ^Etolians  and  Achaeans  announcing  the  success  of 
the  Roman  arms  against  the  lUyrians,  belongs  certainly  to  B.C. 
228.  In  the  same  year,  or  the  year  preceding,  Corcyra,  Apol- 
lonia,  and  Epidamnus  became  Roman  dependencies. 

Demetrius  left  an  only  son,  Philip,  who  was  but  eight  years 
old  at  his  decease.  He  was  at  once  acknowledged  king ;  but 
owing  to  his  tender  age,  his  guardianship  was  undertaken  by 
his  kinsman,  Antigonus,  the  son  of  his  father's  first  cousin,  De- 
metrius, "  the  Handsome."  It  was,  consequently,  this  prince 
who  directed  the  policy  of  Macedonia  during  the  period  which 
immediately  followed  on  the  death  of  Demetrius  II. — who,  in 
fact,  ruled  Macedonia  for  nine  years,  from  B.C.  229  to  220. 
The  events  of  this  period  are  of  first-rate  interest,  including, 
as  they  do,  the  last  display  of  patriotism  and  vigor  at  Sparta, 
and  the  remarkable  turn  of  affairs  whereby  Macedonia,  from 
being  the  deadly  foe  of  the  Achaean  League,  became  its  friend, 
ally,  and  protector. 

The  other  wars  of  Antigonus  Doson  were  comparatively 
unimportant.  He  repulsed  an  attack  of  the  Dardanians,  who 
had  defeated  his  predecessor,  suppressed  an  insurrection  in 
Thessaly,  and  made  an  expedition  by  sea  against  South-west- 
ern Asia  Minor,  which  is  said  to  have  resulted  in  the  conquest 
of  Caria.    It  was  impossible,  however,  that  he  should  long  hold 


this  distant  dependency,  which  shortly  reverted  to  Egypt,  the 
chief  maritime  power  of  this  period.  Soon  after  his  return 
from  Greece,  Antigonus  died  of  disease,  having  held  the  sover- 
eignty for  the  space  of  nine  years.  He  was  succeeded  by  the 
rightful  heir  to  the  throne,  Philip,  the  son  of  Demetrius  II., 
in  whose  name  he  had  carried  on  the  government. 

Philip,  who  was  still  no  more  than  seventeen  years  old,  was 
left  by  his  kinsman  to  the  care  of  tutors  and  guardians.  He 
seemed  to  ascend  the  throne  at  a  favorable  moment,  when 
Macedonia,  at  very  little  expenditure  of  either  men  or  money, 
had  recovered  Greece,  had  repulsed  her  Illyrian  adversaries, 
and  was  released,  by  the  death  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes,  from 
her  most  formidable  enemy  among  the  successors  of  Alexan- 
der. But  all  these  advantages  were  neutralized  by  the  rash 
conduct  of  the  king  himself,  who  first  allied  himself  with  Han- 
nibal against  Rome,  and  then  with  Antiochus  against  Egypt. 
No  doubt  Philip  saw,  more  clearly  than  most  of  his  contempo- 
raries, the  dangerously  aggressive  character  of  the  Roman 
power;  nor  can  we  blame  him  for  seeking  to  form  coalitions 
against  the  conquering  republic.  But,  before  venturing  to 
make  Rome  his  enemy,  he  should  have  consolidated  his  power 
at  home;  and,  when  he  made  the  venture,  he  should  have 
been  content  with  no  half  measures,  but  should  have  thrown 
himself,  heart  and  soul,  into  the  quarrel. 

The  first  war  in  which  the  young  prince  engaged  was  one 
that  had  broken  out  between  the  Achaeans  and  ^tolians.  The 
vEtolians,  who  now  for  the  first  time  show  themselves  a  really 
first-rate  Greek  power,  had  been  gradually  growing  in  impor- 
tance, from  the  time  when  they  provoked  the  special  anger  of 
Antipater  in  the  Lamian  War,  and  were  threatened  with  trans- 
plantation into  Asia.  Somewhat  earlier  than  this  they  had 
organized  themselves  into  a  Federal  Republic,  and  had  thus  set 
the  example  which  the  Achaeans  followed  half  a  century  after- 
wards. Some  account  of  their  institutions,  and  of  the  extent 
of  their  power,  is  requisite  for  the  proper  understanding  both 
of  their  strength  and  of  their  weakness. 

The  war  of  the  ^tolians  and  Achaeans  was  provoked  by 
the  former,  who  thought  they  saw  in  the  accession  of  so  young 
a  prince  as  Philip  to  the  throne  of  Macedon  a  favorable  oppor- 


tunity  for  advancing  their  interests  after  their  own  peculiar 
method.  It  commenced  with  the  invasion  of  Messenia,  and 
would  probably  have  been  ruinous  to  Achaea,  had  Philip  al- 
lowed himself  to  be  detained  in  Macedonia  by  apprehensions 
of  danger  from  his  Illyrian  neighbors,  or  had  he  shown  less 
vigor  and  ability  in  his  proceedings  after  he  entered  Greece. 
Though  thwarted  by  the  treachery  of  his  minister  and  guard- 
ian, Apelles,  who  was  jealous  of  the  influence  of  Aratus,  and 
but  little  aided  by  any  of  his  Greek  allies,  he  gained  a  series 
of  brilliant  successes,  overrunning  most  of  ^tolia,  capturing 
Thermon,  the  capital,  detaching  from  the  League  Phigaleia  in 
Arcadia  and  the  Phthian  Thebes,  and  showing  himself  in  all 
respects  a  worthy  successor  of  the  old  Macedonian  conquerors. 
But  after  four  years  of  this  successful  warfare,  he  allowed  him- 
self to  be  diverted  from  what  should  have  been  his  first  object, 
the  complete  reduction  of  Greece,  by  the  prospect  which 
opened  upon  him  after  Hannibal's  victory  at  Lake  Thrasimene. 
At  the  instance  of  Demetrius  of  Pharos  he  concluded  a  peace 
with  the  i^tolians  on  the  principle  of  uti  possedetis,  and,  retiring 
into  Macedonia,  entered  upon  those  negotiations  which  in- 
volved him  shortly  afterwards  in  a  war  with  Rome. 

The  negotiations  opened  by  Philip  with  Hannibal,  B.C.  216, 
interrupted  by  the  capture  of  his  ambassadors,  were  brought 
to  a  successful  issue  in  B.C.  215 ;  and  in  the  ensuing  year  Philip 
began  his  first  war  with  Rome  by  the  siege  of  Apollonia,  the 
chief  Roman  port  in  Illyricum.  By  securing  this  place,  he  ex- 
pected to  facilitate  the  invasion  of  Italy  on  which  he  was  bent, 
and  to  prepare  the  way  for  that  complete  expulsion  of  the 
Romans  from  the  eastern  coast  of  the  gulf,  which  was  one  of 
the  objects  he  had  most  at  heart.  But  he  soon  learned  that  the 
Romans  were  an  enemy  with  whom,  under  any  circumstances 
whatever,  it  was  dangerous  to  contend.  Defeated  by  M.  Vale- 
rius, who  surprised  his  camp  at  night,  he  was  obliged  to  bum 
his  ships  and  make  a  hasty  retreat.  His  schemes  of  invasion 
were  rudely  overthrown;  and,  three  years  later,  B.C.  211,  the 
Romans,  by  concluding  a  treaty  with  i^tolia  and  her  allies 
(Elis,  Sparta,  the  Illyrian  chief,  Scerdilaidas,  and  Attains,  king 
of  Pergamus),  gave  the  war  a  new  character,  transferring  it 
into  Philip's  own  dominions,  and  so  occupying  him  there  that 


he  was  forced  to  implore  aid  from  Carthage  instead  of  bringing 
succor  to  Hannibal.  After  many  changes  of  fortune,  the  Mace- 
donian monarch,  having  by  the  hands  of  his  ally,  Philopoemen, 
defeated  the  Spartans  at  Mantineia,  induced  the  ^tolians  to 
conclude  a  separate  peace;  after  which  the  Romans,  anxious 
to  concentrate  all  their  energies  on  the  war  with  Carthage, 
consented  to  a  treaty  on  terms  not  dishonorable  to  either 

Philip  had  now  a  breathing-space,  and  might  have  employed 
it  to  consolidate  his  power  in  Macedonia  and  Greece,  before 
the  storm  broke  upon  him  which  was  manifestly  impending. 
But  his  ambition  was  too  great,  and  his  views  were  too  grand, 
to  allow  of  his  engaging  in  a  work  so  humble  and  unexciting 
as  consolidation.  The  Macedonian  monarch  had  by  this  time 
disappointed  all  his  earlier  promise  of  virtue  and  moderation. 
He  had  grown  profligate  in  morals,  criminal  in  his  acts,  both 
public  and  private,  and  strangely  reckless  in  his  policy.  Grasp- 
ing after  a  vast  empire,  he  neglected  to  secure  what  he  already 
possessed,  and,  while  enlarging  the  bounds,  he  diminished  the 
real  strength  of  his  kingdom.  It  became  now  his  object  to 
extend  his  dominion  on  the  side  of  Asia,  and  with  this  view  he 
first  (about  B.C.  205)  concluded  a  treaty  with  Antiochus  the 
Great  for  the  partition  of  the  territories  of  Egypt,  and  then 
(B.C.  203)  plunged  into  a  war  with  Attains  and  the  Rhodians. 
His  own  share  of  the  Egyptian  spoils  was  to  comprise  Lysi- 
macheia  and  the  adjoining  parts  of  Thrace,  Samos,  Ephesus, 
Caria,  and  perhaps  other  portions  of  Asia  Minor,  He  began 
at  once  to  take  possession  of  these  places.  A  war  with  Attains 
and  Rhodes  was  almost  the  necessary  result  of  such  proceed- 
ings, since  their  existence  depended  on  the  maintenance  of  a 
balance  of  power  in  these  parts,  and  the  instinct  of  self-preser- 
vation naturally  threw  them  on  the  Egyptian  side.  Philip, 
moreover,  took  no  steps  to  disarm  their  hostility :  on  the  con- 
trary, before  war  was  declared,  he  burnt  the  arsenal  of  the 
Rhodians  by  the  hands  of  an  emissary ;  and  in  the  war  itself, 
one  of  his  opening  acts  was  to  strengthen  Prusias,  the  enemy 
of  Attains,  by  making  over  to  him  the  ^tolian  dependency, 
Cius.  The  main  event  of  the  war  was  the  great  defeat  of  his 
fleet  by  the  combined  squadrons  of  the  two  powers  off  Chios, 



B.C.  201,  a  defeat  ill  compensated  by  the  subsequent  victory  of 
Lade.  Still  Philip  was,  on  the  whole,  successful,  and  accom- 
plished the  main  objects  which  he  had  in  view,  making  himself 
master  of  Thasos,  Samos,  Chios,  of  Caria,  and  of  many  places 
in  Ionia.  Unassisted  by  Egypt,  the  allies  were  too  weak  to 
protect  her  territory,  and  Philip  obtained  the  extension  of  do- 
minion which  he  had  desired,  but  at  the  cost  of  provoking  the 
intense  hostility  of  two  powerful  naval  states,  and  the  ill-will 
of  -<Etolia,  which  he  had  injured  by  his  conquest  of  Cius. 

These  proceedings  of  Philip  in  the  yEgean  had,  moreover, 
been  well  calculated  to  bring  about  a  rupture  of  the  peace  with 
Rome.  Friendly  relations  had  existed  between  the  Romans 
and  Egypt  from  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  and  even 
from  an  earlier  date  Rhodes  and  Rome  had  been  on  terms 
of  intimacy.  Attains  was  an  actual  ally  of  Rome,  and  had 
been  included  in  the  late  treaty.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising 
that  in  B.C.  200  Rome  remonstrated,  and,  when  Philip  rejected 
every  demand,  declared  the  peace  at  an  end  and  renewed  the 

The  Second  War  of  Philip  with  Rome  is  the  turning-point 
in  the  history  of  Ancient  Europe,  deciding,  as  it  did,  the  ques- 
tion whether  Macedon  and  Rome  should  continue  two  parallel 
forces,  dividing  between  them  the  general  direction  of  Euro- 
pean affairs,  or  whether  the  power  of  the  former  should  be 
completely  swept  away,  and  the  dominion  of  the  latter  over  the 
civilized  West  finally  and  firmly  established.  It  is  perhaps 
doubtful  what  the  result  would  have  been,  if  Philip  had  guided 
his  conduct  by  the  commonest  rules  of  prudence;  if,  aware 
of  the  nature  of  the  conflict  into  which  he  was  about  to  be 
plunged,  he  had  conciliated  instead  of  alienating  his  natural 
supports,  and  had  so  been  able  to  meet  Rome  at  the  head  of 
a  general  confederacy  of  the  Hellenes.  As  it  was,  Greece  was 
at  first  divided,  the  Rhodians,  Athenians,  and  Athamanians 
siding  with  Rome ;  .^olia,  Epirus,  Achaea,  and  Sparta  being 
neutral ;  and  Thessaly,  Boeotia,  Acamania,  Megalopolis,  and 
Argos  supporting  Philip ;  while  in  the  latter  part  of  the  war, 
after  Flamininus  had  proclaimed  himself  the  champion  of  Gre- 
cian freedom,  almost  the  entire  force  of  Hellas  was  thrown  on 
the  side  of  the  Romans.    Rome  had  also  the  alUance  of  the 


Illyrian  tribes,  always  hostile  to  their  Macedonian  neighbors, 
and  of  Attains,  king  of  Pergamus.  Philip  was  left  at  last  with- 
out a  friend  or  ally,  excepting  Acarnania,  which  exhibited  the 
unusual  spectacle  of  a  grateful  nation  firmly  adhering  to  its 
benefactor  in  his  adversity. 

The  terms  of  peace  agreed  to  by  Philip  after  the  battle  of 
Cynocephalae  were  the  following : — He  was  to  evacuate  all  the 
Greek  cities  which  he  held,  whether  in  Europe  or  Asia,  some 
immediately,  the  others  within  a  given  time.  He  was  to  sur- 
render his  state-galley  and  all  his  navy  except  five  light  ships. 
He  was  to  restore  all  the  Roman  prisoners  and  deserters ;  and 
he  was  to  pay  to  the  Romans  looo  talents,  500  at  once,  the  rest 
in  ten  annual  installments.  He  was  also  to  abstain  from  all 
aggressive  war,  and  to  surrender  any  claim  to  his  revolted 
province,  Orestis.  These  terms,  though  hard,  were  as  favor- 
able as  he  had  any  right  to  expect.  Had  the  yEtolians  been 
allowed  to  have  their  way,  he  would  have  been  far  more  se- 
verely treated. 

The  policy  of  Rome  in  proclaiming  freedom  to  the  Greeks, 
and  even  withdrawing  her  garrisons  from  the  great  fortresses 
of  Demetrias,  Chalcis,  and  Corinth — the  "  fetters  of  Greece  " 
— was  undoubtedly  sound.  Greek  freedom  could  not  be  main- 
tained excepting  under  her  protection ;  and,  by  undertaking 
the  protectorate,  she  attached  the  bulk  of  the  Greek  people  to 
her  cause.  At  the  same  time,  the  establishment  of  universal 
freedom  prevented  any  state  from  having  much  power;  and 
in  the  quarrels  that  were  sure  to  ensue  Rome  would  find  her 

War  broke  out  in  Greece  in  the  very  year  of  Flamininus's 
departure,  B.C.  194,  by  the  intrigues  of  the  .^tolians,  who  en- 
couraged Nabis  to  attack  the  Achaeans,  then  murdered  Nabis, 
and  finally  invited  Antiochus  over  from  Asia.  The  defeat  of 
Antiochus  at  Thermopylae,  B.C.  191,  left  the  ^tolians  to  bear 
the  brunt  of  the  war  which  they  had  provoked,  and  after  the 
battle  of  Magnesia,  B.C.  190,  there  was  nothing  left  for  them 
but  complete  submission.  Rome  curtailed  their  territory,  and 
made  them  subject-allies,  but  forbore  to  crush  them  utterly, 
since  they  might  still  be  useful  against  Macedonia. 

The  degradation  of  .^Etolia  was  favorable  to  the  growth  and 



advancement  of  the  Achrean  League,  which  at  one  and  the 
same  time  was  patronized  by  Rome,  and  seemed  to  patriotic 
Greeks  the  only  remaining  rallying-point  for  a  national  party. 
The  League  at  this  time  was  under  the  guidance  of  the  able 
and  honest  Philopoemen,  whose  efforts  for  its  extension  were 
crowned  with  remarkable  success.  After  the  murder  of  Nabis 
by  the  i^tolians,  Sparta  was  induced  to  join  the  League,  B.C. 
192;  and,  a  year  later,  the  last  of  the  Peloponnesian  states 
which  had  remained  separate,  Messene  and  Elis,  came  in.  The 
League  now  reached  its  widest  territorial  extent,  comprising 
all  the  Peloponnese,  together  with  Meg^ra  and  other  places 
beyond  its  limits. 

After  the  conclusion  of  his  peace  with  Rome,  Philip  for  some 
years  remained  quiet.  But  having  assisted  the  Romans  in  their 
struggle  with  Antiochus  and  the  yEtolians,  he  was  allowed  to 
extend  his  dominions  by  wars  not  only  with  Thrace,  but  also 
with  the  Dolopians,  Athamanians,  and  even  the  Thessalians 
and  Magnesians.  When,  however,  his  assistance  was  no 
longer  needed,  Rome  required  him  to  g^ve  up  all  his  con- 
quests and  retire  within  the  limit  of  Macedonia.  Prolonged 
negotiations  followed,  until  at  last  (B.C.  183)  the  Senate  was 
induced  to  relax  in  their  demands  by  the  mediation  of  De- 
metrius, Philip's  second  son,  long  a  hostage  at  Rome,  for 
whom  they  professed  to  have  a  warm  regard.  The  favor 
openly  shown  towards  this  prince  by  the  Roman  government 
was  not  perhaps  intended  to  injure  him ;  but  it  naturally  had 
that  result.  It  aroused  the  suspicion  of  his  father  and  the  jeal- 
ousy of  his  elder  brother,  Perseus,  and  led  to  the  series  of  ac- 
cusations against  the  innocent  youth,  which  at  length  induced 
his  father  to  consent  to  his  death,  B.C.  181.  It  may  have  been 
remorse  for  his  hasty  act  which  brought  Philip  himself  to  the 
grave  within  two  years  of  his  son's  decease,  at  the  age  of  fifty- 

It  is  said  that  Philip  had  intended,  on  discovering  the  inno- 
cence of  Demetrius,  and  the  guilt  of  his  false  accuser,  Perseus, 
to  debar  the  latter  from  the  succession.  He  brought  forward 
into  public  life  a  certain  Antigonus,  a  nephew  of  Antigonus 
Doson,  and  would,  it  is  believed,  have  made  him  his  heir,  had 
he  not  died  both  prematurely  and  suddenly.    Antigonus  be- 


ing  absent  from  the  court,  Perseus  mounted  the  throne  without 
opposition ;  but  he  took  care  to  secure  himself  in  its  possession 
by  soon  afterwards  murdering  his  rival. 

It  had  been  the  aim  of  Philip,  ever  since  the  battle  of  Cyno- 
cephalse,  and  it  continued  to  be  the  aim  of  Perseus,  to  maintain 
the  peace  with  Rome  as  long  as  might  be  feasible,  but  at  the 
same  time  to  invigorate  and  strengthen  Macedonia  in  every 
possible  way,  and  so  to  prepare  her  for  a  second  struggle, 
which  it  was  hoped  might  terminate  differently  from  the  first. 
Philip  repopulated  his  exhausted  provinces  by  transplantations 
of  Thracians  and  others,  recruited  his  finances  by  careful  work- 
ing of  the  mineral  treasures  in  which  Macedonia  abounded, 
raised  and  disciplined  a  large  military  force,  and  entered  into 
alliances  with  several  of  the  Northern  nations,  Illyrian,  Celtic, 
and  perhaps  even  German,  whom  he  hoped  to  launch  against 
Rome,  when  the  proper  time  should  arrive.  Perseus,  inherit- 
ing this  policy,  pursued  it  diligently  for  eight  years,  allying 
himself  by  intermarriages  with  Prusias  of  Bithynia  and  Seleu- 
cus  of  Syria,  winning  to  his  cause  Cotys  the  Odrysian,  Gentius 
the  Illyrian,  the  Scordisci,  the  Bastarnse,  and  others.  Even  in 
Greece  he  had  a  considerable  party,  who  thought  his  yoke 
would  be  more  tolerable  than  that  of  Rome.  Boeotia  actually 
entered  into  his  alliance ;  and  the  other  states  mostly  wavered 
and  might  have  been  won,  had  proper  measures  been  taken. 
But  as  the  danger  of  a  rupture  drew  near,  Perseus's  good 
genius  seemed  to  forsake  him.  He  continued  to  pursue  the 
policy  of  procrastination  long  after  the  time  had  arrived  for 
vigorous  and  prompt  action.  He  allowed  Rome  to  crush  his 
friends  in  Greece  without  reaching  out  a  hand  to  their  assist- 
ance. Above  all,  by  a  foolish  and  ill-timed  niggardliness,  he 
lost  the  advantage  of  almost  all  the  alliances  which  he  had  con- 
tracted, disgusting  and  alienating  his  allies,  one  after  another, 
by  the  refusal  of  his  subsidies  which  they  required  before  set- 
ting their  troops  in  motion.  He  thus  derived  no  benefit  from 
his  well-filled  treasury,  which  simply  went  to  swell  the  Roman 
gains  at  the  end  of  the  war. 

The  Romans  landed  in  Epirus  in  the  spring  of  B.C.  171,  and 
employed  themselves  for  some  months  in  detaching  from  Per- 
seus his  allies,  and  in  putting  down  his  party  in  the  Greek 


states.  They  dissolved  the  Boeotian  League,  secured  the  elec- 
tion of  their  partisans  in  various  places,  and  obtained  promises 
of  aid  from  Achaea  and  Thessaly.  Perseus  allowed  himself  to 
be  entrapped  into  making  a  truce  during  these  months,  and  the 
Romans  were  thus  able  to  complete  their  preparations  at  their 
leisure.  At  lengfth,  towards  autumn,  both  armies  took  the 
field — Perseus  with  39,000  foot  and  4000  horse,  the  Romans 
with  an  equal  number  of  horse,  but  with  foot  not  much  ex- 
ceeding 30,000.  In  the  first  battle,  which  was  fought  in  Thes- 
saly, Perseus  was  victorious ;  but  he  made  no  use  of  his  victory, 
except  to  sue  for  peace,  which  was  denied  him.  The  war  then 
languished  for  two  years ;  but  in  B.C.  168,  the  command  being 
taken  by  L.  i^milius  Paullus,  Perseus  was  forced  to  an  engage- 
ment near  Pydna  (June  22),  which  decided  the  fate  of  the  mon- 
archy. The  defeated  prince  fled  to  Samothrace,  carrying  with 
him  6000  talents — a  sum  the  judicious  expenditure  of  which 
might  have  turned  the  scale  against  the  Romans.  Here  he 
was  shortly  afterwards  captured  by  the  praetor  Octavius,  and, 
being  carried  to  Rome  by  the  victorious  consul,  was  led  in 
triumph,  and  within  a  few  years  killed  by  ill  usage,  about  B.C. 

The  conquered  kingdom  of  Macedonia  was  not  at  once  re- 
duced into  the  form  of  a  Roman  province,  but  was  divided  up 
into  four  distinct  states,  each  of  them,  it  would  seem,  a  kind  of 
federal  republic,  which  were  expressly  forbidden  to  have  any 
dealings  one  with  another.  Amphipolis,  Thessalonica,  Pella, 
and  Pelagonia  were  made  the  capitals  of  the  four  states.  To 
prevent  any  outburst  of  discontent  at  the  loss  of  political  status, 
the  burdens  hitherto  laid  upon  the  people  were  lightened. 
Rome  was  content  to  receive  in  tribute  from  the  Macedonians 
one-half  the  amount  which  they  had  been  in  the  habit  of  pay- 
ing to  their  kings. 

In  Greece,  the  immediate  effect  of  the  last  Macedonian  War 
was  the  disappearance  of  four  out  of  the  five  Federal  Unions, 
which  had  recently  divided  almost  the  whole  of  the  Hellenic 
soil  among  them.  The  allegiance  of  vEtolia  had  wavered  dur- 
ing the  struggle ;  and  at  its  close  the  Romans  either  formally 
dissolved  the  League,  or  made  it  simply  municipal.  Acar- 
nania,  which  went  over  to  Rome  in  the  course  of  the  war,  was 


nominally  allowed  to  continue  a  confederacy,  but  practically 
vanishes  from  Grecian  history  from  this  moment.  Boeotia 
having  submitted,  B.C.  171,  was  formally  broken  up  into  dis- 
tinct cities.  Epirus  was  punished  for  deserting  the  Roman 
side  by  desolation  and  depopulation,  the  remnant  of  her  people 
being  handed  over  to  the  rule  of  a  tyrant.  The  only  power 
remaining  in  Greece  which  possessed  at  once  some  strength 
and  a  remnant  of  independence,  was  Achaea,  whose  fidelity  to 
Rome  during  the  whole  course  of  the  war  made  it  impossible 
even  for  the  Roman  Senate  to  proceed  at  once  to  treat  her  as 
an  enemy. 

Achaea,  nevertheless,  was  doomed  from  the  moment  that 
Macedonia  fell.  The  policy  of  Rome  was  at  this  time  not 
guided  by  a  sense  of  honor,  but  wholly  by  a  regard  for  her  own 
interests.  Having  crushed  Macedonia  and  mastered  all 
Greece  except  Achaea,  she  required  for  the  completion  of  her 
work  in  this  quarter  that  Achaea  should  either  become  wholly 
submissive  to  her  will,  or  be  conquered.  It  was  at  once  to  test 
the  submissiveness  of  the  Achaean  people,  and  to  obtain  host- 
ages for  their  continued  good  behavior,  that  Rome,  in  B.C. 
167,  required  by  her  ambassadors  the  trial  of  above  a  thousand 
of  the  chief  Achaeans  on  the  charge  of  having  secretly  aided 
Perseus ;  and,  when  the  Achaean  Assembly  did  not  dare  to  re- 
fuse, carried  off  to  Italy  the  whole  of  the  accused  persons.  All 
the  more  moderate  and  independent  of  the  Achaeans  were  thus 
deported,  and  the  strong  partisans  of  Rome,  Callicrates  and 
his  friends,  were  left  in  sole  possession  of  the  government. 
For  seventeen  years  the  accused  persons  were  kept  in  prison  in 
Etruscan  towns  without  a  hearing.  Then,  when  their  number 
had  dwindled  to  three  hundred,  and  their  unjust  detention  had 
so  exasperated  them  that  a  rash  and  reckless  policy  might  be 
expected  from  their  return  to  power,  Rome  suddenly  released 
the  remnant  and  sent  them  back  to  their  country. 

The  natural  consequences  followed.  Power  fell  into  the 
hands  of  Diaeus,  Critolaiis,  and  Damocritus,  three  of  the  exiles 
who  were  most  bitterly  enraged  against  Rome ;  and  these  per- 
sons played  into  the  hands  of  their  hated  enemies  by  exciting 
troubles  intended  to  annoy  the  Romans,  but  which  really  gave 
them  the  pretext — which  was  exactly  what  they  wanted — for 


an  armed  interference.  The  rebellion  of  Andriscus,  a  pretended 
son  of  Perseus,  in  Macedonia  (B.C.  149  to  148),  caused  a  brief 
delay ;  but  in  B.C.  146,  four  years  after  the  return  of  the  exiles, 
war  was  actually  declared.  Metellus  first,  and  then  Mummius, 
defeated  the  forces  of  the  League;  Critolaus  fell  in  battle; 
Diaeus  slew  himself ;  Corinth,  where  the  remnant  of  the  Achae- 
an army  had  taken  refuge,  was  taken  and  sacked,  and  the  last 
faint  spark  of  Grecian  independence  was  extinguished.  Achaea 
was  not,  indeed,  at  once  reduced  into  a  province ;  and,  though 
the  League  was  formally  dissolved,  yet,  after  an  interval,  its 
nominal  revival  was  permitted ;  but  the  substance  of  liberty  had 
vanished  at  the  battle  of  Leucopetra,  and  the  image  of  it  which 
Polybius  was  allowed  to  restore  was  a  mere  shadow,  known  by 
both  parties  to  be  illusory.  Before  many  years  were  past, 
Achaea  received,  like  the  other  provinces,  her  proconsul,  and 
became  an  integral  part  of  the  great  empire  against  which  she 
had  found  it  vain  to  attempt  to  struggle. 

Part  IV. 

History  of  the  Smaller  States   and  Kingdoms  formed  out  of  the 
Fragments  of  Alexander' s  Monarchy.^ 

Besides  the  three  main  kingdoms  of  Syria,  Egypt,  and  Mace- 
donia, which  were  formed  out  of  the  g^eat  empire  of  Alexander, 
there  arose  in  the  East  at  this  time,  partly  out  of  Alexander's 
dominions,  partly  out  of  unconquered  portions  of  the  Persian 
territory,  a  number  of  independent  lesser  states,  mostly  mon- 
archies, which  played  an  important  part  in  Oriental  history 

*  Sources.  Besides  most  of  the  ancient  writers  mentioned  above  as 
authorities  for  the  history  of  the  Syrian,  Egyptian,  and  Macedonian 
kingdoms,  the  following  are  of  value: — The  fragments  of  Memnon  of 
Heracleia  Pontica,  published  in  the  "  Fragmenta  Historicorum  Grae- 
corum  "  of  C.  Miiller.  Paris,  1849;  vol.  iii.  The  "  Parthica  "  of  Arrian, 
contained  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  "  of  Photius  (ed.  Bekkcr.  Berolini.  1824; 
2  vols.  4to).  The  great  work  of  the  Jewish  historian  Fl.  Josephus. 
entitled  "  Antiquitatum  Judaicarum  libri  xx."  (ed.  K.  E.  Richtcr.  Lip- 
siae,  1825-7;  4  vols.  8vo).  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  "  Historia  Ro- 
mana"  (ed.  Wagner  et  Erfurdt.  Lipsiae.  1808:  3  vols.  8vo).  And. 
especially  for  the  Jewish  history,  the  "Books  of  Maccabees." 


during  the  decline  of  the  Macedonian  and  the  rise  of  the  Ro- 
man power,  and  of  which  therefore  some  account  must  be 
given  in  a  work  hke  the  present.  The  principal  of  these  were, 
first,  in  Asia  Minor,  Pergamus,  Bithynia,  Paphlagonia,  Pontus 
and  Cappadocia ;  secondly,  in  the  region  adjoining,  Greater 
and  Lesser  Armenia ;  thirdly,  in  the  remoter  East,  Bactria  and 
Parthia ;  and,  fourthly,  in  the  tract  between  Syria  and  Egypt, 

Our  information  on  the  subject  of  these  kingdoms  is  very 
scanty.  No  ancient  writer  gives  us  any  continuous  or  sep- 
arate history  of  any  of  them.  It  is  only  so  far  as  they  become 
implicated  in  the  affairs  of  the  greater  kingdoms  that  they  at- 
tract the  ancient  writers'  attention.  Their  history  is  thus  very 
incomplete,  and  sometimes  quite  fragmentary.  Much,  how- 
ever, has  been  done  towards  making  out  a  continuous  nar- 
rative, in  some  cases,  by  a  skilful  combination  of  scattered 
notices,  and  a  judicious  use  of  the  knowledge  derived  from 

Kingdom  of  Pergamus. 

In  Western  Asia  the  most  important  of  the  lesser  kingdoms 
was  that  of  Pergamus,  which  arose  in  the  course  of  the  war 
waged  between  Seleucus  Nicator  and  Lysimachus.  Small  and 
insignificant  at  its  origin,  this  kingdom  gradually  grew  into 
power  and  importance  by  the  combined  military  genius  and 
prudence  of  its  princes,  who  had  the  skill  to  side  always  with 
the  stronger  party.  By  assisting  Syria  against  the  revolted 
satrap  Achaeus,  and  Rome  against  Macedon  and  Syria,  the 
kings  of  Pergamus  gradually  enlarged  their  dominion,  until 
they  were  at  length  masters  of  fully  half  Asia  Minor.  At  the 
same  time,  they  had  the  good  taste  to  encourage  art  and 
literature,  and  to  render  the  capital  of  their  kingdom  a  sort  of 
rival  to  Alexandria.  They  adorned  Pergamus  with  noble 
buildings,  the  remains  of  which  may  be  seen  at  the  present  day. 
They  warmly  fostered  the  kindred  arts  of  painting  and  sculpt- 
ure. To  advance  literature,  they  established  an  extensive 
public  library,  and  attracted  to  their  capital  a  considerable 
number  of  learned  men.  A  grammatical  and  critical  school 
grew  up  at  Pergamus  only  second  to  the  Alexandrian ;  and  the 


Egyptian  papyrus  was  outdone,  as  a  literary  material,  by  the 
charta  Pergamcna  (parchment). 

The  founder  of  the  kingdom  was  a  certain  Philetaerus,  a 
eunuch,  whom  Lysimachus  had  made  governor  of  the  place 
and  guardian  of  his  treasures.  On  the  death  of  Lysimachus 
at  the  battle  of  Corupedion,  Philetaerus  maintained  possession 
of  the  fortress  on  his  own  account,  and,  by  a  judicious  employ- 
ment of  the  wealth  whereof  he  had  become  possessed,  in  the 
hire  of  mercenaries  and  otherwise,  he  succeeded  in  establishing 
his  independence,  and  even  in  transmitting  his  principality  and 
treasure  to  his  nephew,  Eumenes,  the  son  of  Eumenes,  his 

Eumenes  I.,  the  successor  of  Philetaerus,  was  attacked,  very 
shortly  after  his  succession,  by  Antiochus  I.,  the  son  and  suc- 
cessor of  Seleucus,  but  defeated  him  in  a  pitched  battle  near 
Sardis,  and  obtained  an  increase  of  territory  by  his  victory. 
He  reigned  twenty-two  years,  and  died  from  the  effects  of  over- 
drinking, B.C.  241,  bequeathing  Pergamus  to  his  first  cousin, 
Attalus — the  son  of  his  father's  brother,  Attalus,  by  Antiochis, 
the  daughter  of  Achaeus. 

Attalus  I.  distinguished  himself  early  in  his  reign  (about 
B.C.  239)  by  a  great  victory  over  the  Gauls,  who  had  been  now 
for  above  thirty  years  settled  in  Northern  Phrygfia  (Galatia), 
whence  they  made  continual  plundering  raids  upon  their  neigh- 
bors. On  obtaining  this  success,  he  for  the  first  time  assumed 
the  title  of  "  king,"  having  previously,  like  his  two  predeces- 
sors, borne  only  that  of  "  dynast."  From  this  time  we  hear 
nothing  of  him  for  the  space  of  about  ten  years,  when  we  find 
him  engaged  in  a  war  with  Antiochus  Hierax,  the  brother  of 
Seleucus  CalHnicus,  who  was  endeavoring  to  make  himself 
king  of  Asia  Minor.  Having  defeated  this  ambitious  prince, 
and  driven  him  out  of  Asia,  Attalus  succeeded  in  vastly  en- 
larging his  own  dominions,  which,  about  B.C.  226,  included 
most  of  the  countries  west  of  the  Halys  and  north  of  Taurus. 
But  the  Syrian  monarchs  were  not  inclined  to  submit  to  this 
loss  of  territory.  First  Seleucus  Ceraunus  (B.C.  226),  and 
then  Antiochus  the  Great,  by  his  general  Achaeus  (B.C.  223), 
made  war  upon  Attalus,  and  by  the  year  B.C.  221  his  con- 
quests were  all  lost,  and  his  dominions  once  more  reduced  to 



the  mere  Pergamene  principality.  But  in  B.C.  218  the  tide 
again  turned.  By  the  help  of  Gallic  mercenaries  Attains  re- 
covered ^olis ;  and  two  years  later  he  made  a  treaty  with  An- 
tiochus  the  Great  against  Achaeus,  who  had  been  driven  into 
revolt,  which  led  to  his  receiving  back  from  Antiochus,  after 
Achseus's  defeat  and  death,  B.C.  214,  most  of  the  territory 
whereof  he  had  been  deprived  seven  years  previously.  Three 
years  after  this,  B.C.  211,  by  joining  the  ^tolians  and  Romans 
against  Philip,  he  laid  the  foundation  of  the  latter  prosperity  of 
his  kingdom,  which  depended  on  its  enjoying  the  favor  and 
patronage  of  Rome.  In  vain  Philip,  after  peace  had  been 
made,  B.C.  204,  turned  upon  Attains,  invading  and  ravaging 
his  territory,  and  endeavoring  to  sweep  his  fleet  from  the  sea. 
Attains,  in  alliance  with  Rhodes,  proved  more  than  a  match 
for  this  antagonist;  and  the  battle  of  Chios,  B.C.  201,  avenged 
the  desolation  of  Pergamus.  In  the  second  war  between 
Rome  and  Philip,  B.C.  199,  the  Pergamene  monarch,  though 
he  was  seventy  years  of  age,  took  again  an  active  part,  sup- 
porting the  Romans  with  his  fleet,  and  giving  them  very  valu- 
able aid.  But  the  exertion  proved  too  much  for  his  physical 
strength :  he  was  seized  with  illness  as  he  pleaded  the  cause  of 
Rome  in  an  assembly  of  the  Boeotians,  B.C.  197,  and,  having 
been  conveyed  to  Pergamus,  died  there  in  the  course  of  the 
same  year.  He  left  behind  him  four  sons  by  his  wife  Apol- 
lonias,  viz.,  Eumenes,  Attains,  Philetaerus,  and  Athenaeus. 

Eumenes  II.,  the  eldest  of  the  sons  of  Attains,  succeeded  him. 
He  was  a  prudent  and  warlike  prince,  the  inheritor  at  once  of 
his  father's  talents  and  his  policy.  In  the  wars  which  Rome 
waged  with  Philip,  with  Antiochus,  and  with  Perseus,  he  threw 
his  weight  on  the  Roman  side,  only  on  one  occasion  showing 
some  slight  symptoms  of  wavering,  when  in  B.C.  169  he  held 
some  separate  correspondence  with  Perseus.  In  return  for  the 
aid  which  he  furnished  against  Antiochus,  Rome,  after  the  bat- 
tle of  Magnesia,  made  over  to  him  the  greater  part  of  the  ter- 
ritory whereof  she  had  deprived  the  Syrian  king.  Not  only 
were  Mysia,  Lydia,  Phrygia,  Lycaonia,  Pamphylia,  and  por- 
tions of  Caria  and  Lycia,  acknowledged  now  by  the  authority 
of  Rome  to  be  integral  parts  of  the  kingdom  of  Pergamus,  but 
even  the  Chersonese,  with  its  capital  Lysimacheia,  and  the  ad- 



jacent  parts  of  Thrace,  were  attached  to  it.  The  Pergamcne 
monarchy  became  in  this  way  one  of  the  greatest  kingdoms  of 
the  East ;  and  in  the  war  which  followed  with  Prusias  of  Bi- 
thynia,  B.C.  183,  it  was  still  further  enlarged  by  the  addition 
of  the  Hellespontine  Phrygia.  In  those  waged  with  Phar- 
naces  of  Pontus,  B.C.  183  to  179,  and  with  the  Gauls,  about 
B.C.  168,  it  was,  however,  the  object  of  Eumenes  to  maintain, 
rather  than  to  enlarge,  his  boundaries.  Towards  the  close  of 
his  long  reign  he  seems  to  have  become  suspicious  of  the  in- 
creasing power  of  the  Romans,  and  to  have  been  inclined  to 
counteract  their  influence,  so  far  as  he  dared.  Hence  the  Ro- 
mans distrusted  him,  and  were  disposed  to  support  against  him 
his  brother  Attains,  who  was  more  thoroughly  attached  to  their 
interests.  It  was  perhaps  fortunate  for  Eumenes  that  he  died 
when  he  did :  otherwise,  he  might  have  had  to  contend  for  the 
possession  of  his  kingdom  with  his  own  brother,  supported  by 
all  the  power  of  Rome. 

Though  Eumenes  left  behind  him  a  son,  called  Attalus,  yet, 
as  this  Attalus  was  a  mere  boy,  the  crown  was  assumed  by  his 
uncle,  Attalus,  who  took  the  surname  of  Philadelphus.  Phila- 
delphus  reigned  twenty-one  years,  from  B.C.  159  to  138.  In 
the  earlier  part  of  his  reign  he  was  actively  engaged  in  various 
wars,  restoring  Ariarathes  to  his  kingdom,  about  B.C.  157, 
helping  Alexander  Bala  against  Demetrius,  B.C.  152,  assisting 
the  Romans  to  crush  Andriscus,  the  pseudo-Philip,  B.C.  149  to 
148,  and,  above  all,  engaging  in  a  prolonged  contest  with 
Prusias  II.,  who  would  undoubtedly  have  conquered  him  and 
annexed  Pergamus  to  Bithynia,  if  Attalus  had  not  called  in  the 
aid  of  Ariarathes  of  Cappadocia  and  Mithridates  of  Pontus, 
and  also  that  of  the  Romans.  The  threats  of  Rome  forced 
Prusias  to  abstain,  and  even  to  compensate  Attalus  for  his 
losses.  Attalus,  nevertheless,  was  glad  when,  B.C.  149,  an  op- 
portunity offered  itself  of  exchanging  Prusias  for  a  more  peace- 
ful and  friendly  neighbor.  With  this  view  he  supported  Nico- 
medes  in  his  rebellion  against  his  father,  and  helped  to  establish 
him  in  his  kingdom.  A  quiet  time  followed,  which  Attalus  de- 
voted to  the  strengthening  of  his  power  by  the  building  of  new 
cities,  and  to  the  encouragement  of  literature  and  art.  Be- 
coming infirm  as  he  approached  his  eightieth  year,  he  devolved 


the  cares  of  the  government  on  his  minister,  Philopoemen,  who 
became  the  real  ruler  of  the  country.  Finally,  at  the  age  of 
eighty-two,  Philadelphus  died,  leaving  the  crown  to  his 
nephew  and  ward.  Attains,  the  son  of  Eumenes  II.,  who  must 
have  been  now  about  thirty  years  old. 

Attains  III.,  the  son  of  Eumenes  II.,  on  ascending  the  throne 
took  the  name  of  Philometor,  in  honor  of  his  mother,  Strato- 
nice,  the  daughter  of  Ariarathes,  king  of  Cappadocia.  He 
reigned  five  years  only,  from  B.C.  138  to  133;  yet  into  this 
short  space  he  crowded  more  crimes  and  odious  actions  than 
are  ascribed  to  all  the  other  kings  of  his  house  put  together. 
He  condemned  to  death  without  trial  all  the  old  counsellors 
and  friends  of  his  father  and  uncle,  and  at  the  same  time  de- 
stroyed their  families.  He  then  caused  to  be  assassinated  al- 
most all  those  who  held  any  office  of  trust  in  the  kingdom. 
Finally,  he  turned  against  his  own  relations,  and  even  put  to 
death  his  mother,  for  whom  he  had  professed  a  warm  affection. 
At  length  remorse  seized  him,  and  he  abandoned  the  cares  of 
state,  devoting  himself  to  painting,  sculpture,  and  gardening, 
on  which  last  subject  he  wrote  a  work.  He  died  of  a  fever, 
brought  on,  it  is  said,  by  a  sun-stroke ;  and,  by  a  will  as  strange 
as  his  conduct,  left  the  Roman  People  his  heir. 

Rome  readily  accepted  the  legacy;  but  Aristonicus,  a  bas- 
tard son  of  Eumenes  II.,  boldly  disputed  the  prize  with  them, 
claiming  the  kingdom  as  his  natural  inheritance.  He  com- 
pelled the  cities  to  acknowledge  him,  which  had  at  first  refused 
through  fear  of  the  Romans ;  and  when  Licinius  Crassus  was 
sent  to  take  forcible  possession  of  the  country,  Aristonicus  de- 
feated him,  and  took  him  prisoner,  B.C.  131.  In  the  year  fol- 
lowing, however,  Aristonicus  was  himself  defeated  and  made 
prisoner  by  Peperna;  and  the  kingdom  of  Pergamus  became 
shortly  afterwards  a  Roman  province. 

Kingdom  of  Bithynia. 

Though  Bithynia  was  conquered  by  Croesus,  and  submitted 
readily  to  Cyrus,  when  he  absorbed  the  Lydian  empire  into 
his  own  dominions,  yet  we  find,  somewhat  early  in  the  Persian 
period,  that  the  country  is  governed  by  native  kings,  who  are 


not  unfrequently  at  war  with  the  satraps  of  Asia  Minor.  The 
first  of  these  semi-independent  monarchs  is  Dydalsus,  who 
must  have  been  contemporary  with  the  earUer  part  of  the 
Peloponnesian  War.  He  was  succeeded  by  Boteiras,  probably 
the  opponent  of  Pharnabazus  (about  B.C.  400),  who  left  the 
crown  to  his  son,  Bas,  B.C.  376.  This  king,  the  last  under 
the  Persians,  held  the  throne  for  the  long  term  of  fifty  years, 
and  thus  saw  the  commencement  of  the  new  state  of  things 
under  the  Macedonians. 

With  the  dissolution  of  the  Persian  empire,  which  Alexan- 
der's conquests  brought  about,  Bithynia  acquired  complete 
independence.  Bas  successfully  resisted  the  attempts  which 
Alexander  made  by  his  general  Carantus  (Caranus?)  to  re- 
duce him,  and  at  his  death,  in  B.C.  326,  he  left  to  his  son, 
ZipcEtes,  a  flourishing  and  wholly  autonomous  kingdom. 

Zipoetes,  the  son  and  successor  of  Bas,  successfully  main- 
tained the  independence,  which  he  had  inherited,  against  the 
attacks  of  Lysimachus  and  Antiochus  Soter,  while  he  threat- 
ened the  Greek  cities  in  his  neighborhood,  Heracleia  Pontica, 
Astacus,  and  Chalcedon.  He  reigned  forty-eight  years,  from 
B.C.  326  to  B.C.  278,  and  left  behind  him  four  sons,  Nico- 
medes,  Zipoetes,  and  two  others. 

It  would  seem  that,  at  the  death  of  Zipoetes,  a  dispute  con- 
cerning the  succession  arose  between  two  of  his  sons.  The 
eldest  of  them,  Nicomedes,  finding  himself  in  danger  of  losing 
the  kingdom  to  Zipoetes,  his  younger  brother,  invited  the 
Gauls  to  cross  over  from  Europe  to  his  assistance,  and  by  their 
aid  defeated  his  brother  and  fully  established  his  authority. 
He  repelled  by  the  same  aid  an  attack  on  his  independence 
made  by  Antiochus  I.  Nothing  more  is  known  of  Nicomedes, 
except  that  he  founded  Nicomedeia  on  the  Gulf  of  Astacus, 
and  that  he  married  two  wives,  Ditizele  and  Etazeta,  by  the 
former  of  whom  he  had  a  single  son,  Zeilas,  while  by  the  latter 
he  had  three  children,  Prusias,  Tiboetes,  and  Lysandra,  to 
whom,  for  their  mother's  sake,  he  desired  to  leave  his  kingdom. 

Zeilas,  who  was  living  as  an  exile  in  Armenia,  having  ob- 
tained the  services  of  a  band  of  Gauls,  entered  Bithynia,  and 
established  his  authority  by  a  war  in  which  he  frequently  de- 
feated the  partisans  of  his  half-brothers.    Very  little  is  known 


of  his  history;  but  we  may  gather  from  some  passages  that 
he  carried  on  successful  wars  with  Paphlagonia  and  Cappa- 
docia,  in  both  of  which  countries  he  founded  cities.  He  reigned 
about  twenty  years,  and  finally  perished  in  an  attempt  which 
he  made  to  destroy  by  treachery  a  number  of  Gallic  chiefs  at 
a  banquet.    He  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Prusias. 

Prusias  I.,  known  as  "  Prusias  the  Lame,"  ascended  the 
throne  probably  about  B.C.  228,  and  held  it  at  least  forty-five 
years.  The  earlier  years  of  his  reign  were  uneventful;  but, 
from  about  B.C.  220  nearly  to  his  death,  he  was  engaged  in 
a  series  of  important  wars,  and  brought  into  contact  with  some 
of  the  chief  powers  of  Asia  and  Europe.  By  his  unceasing  en- 
ergy he  extended  his  dominions  in  several  directions,  and 
would  have  raised  Bithynia  into  one  of  the  most  important  of 
the  Asiatic  kingdoms,  had  he  not  unfortunately  given  offence 
to  the  Romans,  first,  by  attacking  their  ally,  Eumenes  of  Per- 
gamus,  and,  secondly,  by  sheltering  Hannibal.  Not  content 
with  extorting  the  consent  of  Prusias  to  the  surrender  of  the 
Carthaginian  refugee,  who  was  thereby  driven  to  put  an  end 
to  his  own  life,  Rome,  under  the  threat  of  war,  compelled  the 
Bithynian  monarch  to  cede  to  Eumenes  the  whole  of  the  Hel- 
lespontine  Phrygia.  He  compensated  himself  to  some  extent 
by  attacking  Heracleia  Pontica;  but  here  he  received  the 
wound  from  which  he  derived  his  surname  of  "  the  Lame," 
and  shortly  after  this  he  died,  leaving  the  crown  to  a  son  called, 
like  himself,  Prusias. 

Prusias  H.,  the  son  and  successor  of  Prusias  L,  was  the  most 
wicked  and  contemptible  of  the  Bithynian  monarchs.  Though 
he  had  married,  at  his  own  request,  the  sister  of  the  Macedo- 
nian king,  Perseus,  yet,  when  that  monarch  was  attacked  by  the 
Romans,  he  lent  him  no  aid,  only  venturing  once,  B.C.  169, 
to  intercede  for  his  brother-in-law  by  an  embassy.  When  vic- 
tory declared  itself  on  the  Roman  side,  he  made  the  most  abject 
submission,  and  thus  obtained  the  assent  of  Rome  to  his  reten- 
tion of  his  kingdom.  Like  his  father,  he  lived  on  bad  terms 
with  Eumenes ;  and,  when  that  king  died  and  was  succeeded 
by  Attains  H.,  he  ventured  to  begin  a  war,  B.C.  156,  which 
would  certainly  have  been  successful,  had  the  Romans  ab- 
stained from  interference.    They,  however,  by  threats  induced 


Prusias  to  consent  to  a  peace,  by  which  he  relinquished  the 
fruits  of  his  victories,  and  even  engaged  to  pay  to  Attalus  the 
sum  of  500  talents.  Meanwhile,  he  had  alienated  the  affections 
of  his  subjects  by  his  cruellies  and  impieties,  while  Nicomedes, 
his  son,  had  conciliated  their  regard.  Viewing,  therefore,  his 
son  as  a  rival,  Prusias  first  sent  him  to  Rome,  and  then  gave 
orders  that  he  should  be  assassinated.  But  his  emissary  be- 
trayed him ;  and  Nicomedes,  learning  his  danger,  with  the  con- 
nivance of  the  Senate,  quitted  Rome  and  returned  as  a  pre- 
tender to  his  own  country.  There,  being  openly  supported 
by  Attalus,  and  known  to  have  the  good  wishes  of  the  Romans, 
he  was  received  with  general  favor ;  and,  having  besieged  his 
father  in  Nicomedeia,  obtained  possession  of  his  person  and 
put  him  to  death,  B.C.  149. 

Nicomedes  II.,  who  now  mounted  the  throne,  followed  the 
example  of  the  Syrian  and  Egyptian  kings  in  assuming  the 
title  of  "  Epiphanes,"  or  "  Illustrious."  He  reigned  fifty-eight 
years,  from  B.C.  149  to  91,  and  took  an  active  part  in  the  wars 
which  at  this  time  desolated  Asia  Minor.  It  was  his  object  to 
stand  well  with  the  Romans,  and  hence  he  willingly  sent  a  con- 
tingent to  their  aid  when  they  warred  with  Aristonicus  of  Per- 
gamus,  B.C.  133  to  130,  and,  professedly  at  any  rate,  rendered 
obedience  to  the  various  commands  which  they  addressed  to 
him.  Still  he  made  several  attempts,  all  of  them  more  or  less 
displeasing  to  Rome,  at  increasing  the  power  and  extent  of  his 
kingdom.  In  B.C.  102  he  attacked  Paphlagonia  in  combi- 
nation with  Mithridates  the  Great,  and  took  possession  of 
a  portion  of  it.  Required  by  Rome  to  restore  his  conquest 
to  the  legitimate  heir,  he  handed  it  over  to  one  of  his  own 
sons,  whom  he  pretended  to  be  a  Paphlagonian  prince,  and 
made  him  take  the  name  of  Pylsemenes.  Shortly  afterwards, 
B.C.  96,  when  Mithridates  endeavored  to  annex  Cappadocia, 
and  Laodice,  the  widow  of  the  late  king,  fled  to  him,  he  mar- 
ried her,  and,  warmly  espousing  her  cause,  established  her  as 
queen  in  Cappadocia;  whence,  however,  she  was  shortly  ex- 
pelled by  Mithridates.  Finally,  in  B.C.  93,  after  the  deaths  of 
the  two  sons  of  Laodice,  he  brought  ioTyfzrd  an  impostor,  who 
claimed  to  be  also  her  son,  and  endeavored  to  obtain  for  him 
the  crown  of  Cappadocia.     Here,  however,  he  overreached 


himself.  The  imposture  was  detected;  and  Rome  not  only 
refused  to  admit  the  title  of  his  protege  to  the  Cappadocian 
crown,  but  required  him  likewise  to  abandon  possession  of 
Paphlagonia,  which  was  to  be  restored  to  independence.  Soon 
after  this,  the  long  reign  of  Nicomedes  II.  came  to  an  end. 
His  age  at  his  decease  cannot  have  been  much  less  than  eighty. 
Nicomedes  II.  left  behind  him  two  sons,  Nicomedes  and 
Socrates,  who  was  surnamed  "  the  Good  "  (Xpj/a-To?).  Nico- 
medes, who  was  the  elder  of  the  two,  succeeded,  and  is  known  as 
Nicomedes  III.  He  took  the  titles  of "  Epiphanes  "  and  "  Phil- 
opator."  Scarcely  was  he  seated  on  the  throne  when,  at  the 
instigation  of  Mithridates,  his  brother  Socrates,  accusing  him 
of  illegitimacy,  claimed  the  kingdom,  and,  with  the  aid  of  an 
army  which  Mithridates  furnished,  drove  Nicomedes  out,  and 
assumed  the  crown.  Rome,  however,  in  the  next  year,  B.C.  90, 
by  a  simple  decree  reinstated  Nicomedes,  who  proceeded,  in 
B.C.  89,  to  retaliate  upon  Mithridates  by  plundering  incursions 
into  his  territories.  Thus  provoked,  Mithridates,  in  B.C.  88, 
collected  a  vast  army,  defeated  Nicomedes  on  the  Amneius, 
and  drove  him  with  his  Roman  allies  out  of  Asia.  The  first 
Mithridatic  War  followed ;  and  at  its  close,  in  B.C.  84,  Nico- 
medes was  restored  to  his  kingdom  for  the  second  time,  and  had 
a  tranquil  reign  after  this  for  the  space  of  ten  years.  Dying 
without  issue,  in  B.C.  74,  he  left  by  will  his  kingdom  to  the 
Romans — a  legacy  which  brought  about  the  third  and  greatest 
"  Mithridatic  War." 

Kingdom  of  Paphlagonia. 

Like  Bithynia,  Paphlagonia  became  semi-independent  under 
the  Achaemenian  monarchs.  As  early  as  B.C.  400,  the  rulers 
of  the  country  are  said  to  have  paid  very  little  regard  to  the 
Great  King's  orders;  and  in  B.C.  394  we  find  the  monarch, 
Cotys,  allying  himself  with  Agesilaus  against  Persia.  Thirty 
or  forty  years  later  another  king  is  mentioned  as  reduced  by 
the  Persian  satrap,  Datames.  On  the  dissolution  of  the  Persian 
empire,  Paphlagonia  was  attached  to  his  dominions  by  Mithri- 
dates of  Pontus,  and  it  continued  for  a  considerable  time  to  be 
a  portion  of  the  Pontic  kingdom. 



The  circumstances  under  which,  and  the  time  when,  Paphla- 
gonia  regained  its  independence,  are  unknown  to  us ;  but,  soon 
after  B.C.  200,  we  find  the  throne  once  more  occupied  by  native 
monarchs,  who  are  entangled  in  the  wars  of  the  period.  These 
princes  have  a  difficulty  in  maintaining  themselves  against  the 
monarchs  of  Pontus  on  the  one  hand,  and  those  of  Bithynia  on 
the  other ;  but  they  nevertheless  hold  the  throne  till  B.C.  102, 
when,  the  last  native  king,  Pylaemenes  I.,  dying  without  issue, 
Mithridates  the  Great  and  Nicomedes  II.  conjointly  seize  the 
country,  and  the  latter  establishes  on  the  throne  one  of  his  own 
sons,  who  rules  for  about  eight  years,  when  Mithridates  expels 
him  and  takes  possession  of  the  whole  territory. 

Kingdom  of  Pontus. 

The  satrapy  of  Cappadocia  appears  to  have  been  conferred 
by  Darius  Hystaspis  as  an  hereditary  fief  on  Otanes,  one  of 
the  seven  conspirators,  who  was  descended  from  the  ancient 
Arian  kings  of  Cappadocia.  It  continued  to  form  a  single  prov- 
ince of  the  empire,  and  to  be  governed  by  satraps  descended 
from  Otanes,  till  the  year  B.C.  363,  when  Ariobarzanes,  the 
son  of  the  Mithridates  who  was  satrap  in  the  time  of  Xeno- 
phon,  rebelled,  and  made  himself  king  of  the  portion  of  Cappa- 
docia which  lay  along  the  coast,  and  which  was  thence  called 
"  Pontus  "  by  the  Greeks.  Inland  Cappadocia  continued  to 
be  a  province  of  Persia.  Ariobarzanes  reigned  twenty-six 
years,  from  B.C.  363  to  337,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  his  son, 
Mithridates  I.  (commonly  called  Mithridates  II.),  who  held  the 
kingdom  at  the  time  of  the  Macedonian  invasion. 

Mithridates  I.,  who  ascended  the  throne  B.C.  337,  seems  to 
have  remained  neutral  during  the  contest  between  Darius 
Codomannus  and  Alexander.  On  the  reduction  of  Cappadocia 
by  Perdiccas,  B.C.  322,  he  was,  however,  compelled  to  submit 
to  the  Macedonians,  after  which  he  enjoyed  for  a  time  the  favor 
of  Antigonus  and  helped  him  in  his  wars.  But  Antigonus, 
growing  jealous  of  him,  basely  plotted  his  death ;  whereupon 
he  returned  to  Pontus  and  resumed  a  separate  sovereignty, 
about  B.C.  318.  In  B.C.  317  fie  supported  Eumenes  against 
Antigonus ;  and  in  B.C.  302  he  was  about  to  join  the  league 


of  the  satraps  against  the  same  monarch,  when  Antigonus, 
suspecting  his  intention,  caused  him  to  be  assassinated. 

Mithridates  II.,  the  son  of  Mithridates  I.,  succeeded.  He 
added  considerably  to  his  hereditary  dominions  by  the  acquisi- 
tion of  parts  of  Cappadocia  and  Paphlagonia,  and  even  vent- 
ured to  conclude  an  alliance  with  the  Greeks  of  Heracleia 
Pontica,  B.C.  281,  whom  he  undertook  to  defend  against 
Seleucus.  According  to  Diodorus,  he  reigned  thirty-six  years, 
from  B.C.  302  to  266.  He  left  the  crown  to  his  son,  Ario- 

Ariobarzanes  IL,  who  appears  to  have  reigned  about  twenty- 
one  years,  from  B.C.  266  to  245,  did  little  to  distinguish  him- 
self. He  repulsed  an  attack  of  Ptolemy  (Euergetes?)  by  the 
assistance  of  the  Gauls,  but  afterwards  quarrelled  with  that 
fickle  people,  whose  close  neighborhood  was  very  injurious  to 
his  kingdom.  He  also  obtained  possession  of  the  town  of 
Amastris  upon  the  Euxine,  which  was  surrendered  to  him  by 
Eumenes,  its  dynast.  On  his  death  he  was  succeeded  by  his 
son,  Mithridates,  who  was  a  minor. 

Mithridates  III.,  the  most  distinguished  of  the  earlier  Pontic 
monarchs,  made  it  his  object  to  strengthen  and  augment  his 
kingdom  by  alliances  with  the  other  monarchs  and  princes  of 
Asia,  rather  than  by  warfare.  As  soon  as  he  had  attained  to 
manhood,  he  married  a  sister  of  Seleucus  Callinicus,  with  whom 
he  received  the  province  of  Phrygia  as  a  dowry.  In  B.C.  222, 
he  gave  his  daughter,  Laodice,  in  marriage  to  Antiochus  the 
Great,  the  son  of  Callinicus,  and  at  the  same  time  married  an- 
other daughter,  called  also  Laodice,  to  Achseus,  the  cousin  of 
Antiochus.  He  did  not  allow  these  connections,  however,  to 
fetter  his  political  action.  In  the  war  between  Seleucus  Cal- 
linicus and  Antiochus  Hierax,  he  sided  with  the  latter,  and  on 
one  occasion  he  inflicted  a  most  severe  defeat  upon  his  brother- 
in-law,  who  lost  20,000  men.  In  B.C.  220,  he  turned  his  arms 
against  the  Greeks  of  Sinope,  but  this  town,  which  was  assisted 
by  the  Rhodians,  appears  to  have  maintained  itself  against  his 
efforts.  It  is  uncertain  how  long  Mithridates  III.  reigned, 
but  the  conjecture  is  reasonable  that  he  died  about  B.C.  190. 

He  was  succeeded  on  the  throne  by  his  son,  Pharnaces,  who 
conquered  Sinope,  and  made  it  the  royal  residence,  about  B.C. 


183.  This  king  soon  afterwards  involved  himself  in  a  war  with 
Eumenes  of  Pergamus,  of  whose  greatly  augmented  power 
he  had  naturally  become  jealous.  Rome  endeavored  to  hinder 
hostilities  from  breaking  out,  but  in  B.C.  181  Phamaces  took 
the  field,  overran  Paphlagonia,  expelling  the  king,  Morzes  or 
Morzias,  and  poured  his  troops  into  Cappadocia  and  Galatia. 
At  first,  he  met  with  considerable  success;  but  after  a  while 
the  tide  turned,  and  in  B.C.  179  he  was  glad  to  make  peace  on 
condition  of  giving  up  all  his  conquests  except  the  town  of 
Sinope.  After  this  we  hear  nothing  more  of  him ;  but  he  seems 
to  have  lived  some  considerable  time  longer,  probably  till 
about  B.C.  160. 

Phamaces  I.  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Mithridates,  who 
took  the  name  of  "  Euergetes,"  and  reigned  about  forty  years, 
from  near  B.C.  160  to  120.  He  entered  into  alliance  with  At- 
tains II.,  king  of  Pergamus,  and  lent  him  important  assistance 
in  his  wars  with  Prusias  II.  of  Bithynia,  B.C.  154.  A  few  years 
later  he  made  alliance  with  Rome,  and  sent  a  contingent  to 
bear  a  part  in  the  Third  Punic  War,  B.C.  150  to  146.  He  like- 
wise assisted  Rome  in  the  war  against  Aristonicus,  B.C.  131, 
and  at  its  close  received  the  Greater  Phryg^a  as  the  reward  of 
his  services.  His  end  was  tragical.  About  B.C.  120,  his  own 
immediate  attendants  conspired  against  him,  and  assassinated 
him  at  Sinope,  where  he  held  his  court. 

Mithridates,  the  elder  of  his  two  sons,  succeeded,  and  took 
the  title  of  "  Eupator,"  for  which,  however,  modem  historians 
have  generally  substituted  the  more  high-sounding  epithet  of 
"  the  Great."  He  was  undoubtedly  the  most  able  of  all  the 
Pontic  kings,  and  will  bear  comparison  with  any  of  the  Asiatic 
monarchs  since  Darius  Hystaspis.  Ascending  the  throne 
while  he  was  still  a  minor,  and  intrusted  to  guardians  whom  he 
suspected,  it  was  not  till  about  B.C.  112  that  he  could  under- 
take any  important  enterprise.  But  the  interval  of  about  eight 
years  was  well  employed  in  the  training  of  his  own  mind  and 
body — the  former  by  the  study  of  languages,  whereof  he  is 
said  to  have  spoken  twenty-five ;  the  latter  by  perpetual  hunt- 
ing expeditions  in  the  roughest  and  most  remote  regions.  On 
reaching  the  age  of  twenty,  and  assuming  the  conduct  of  af- 
fairs, he  seems  to  have  realized  at  once  the  danger  of  his  posi- 


tion  as  ruler  of  a  petty  kingdom,  which  must,  by  its  position 
upon  her  borders,  be  almost  immediately  attacked  by  Rome, 
and  could  not  be  expected  to  make  any  effectual  resistance. 
Already,  during  his  minority,  the  grasping  republic  had  seized 
his  province  of  Phrygia ;  and  this  was  felt  to  be  merely  a  fore- 
taste of  the  indignities  and  injuries  with  which,  so  long  as  he 
was  weak,  he  would  have  to  put  up.  Mithridates  therefore 
determined,  not  unwisely,  to  seek  to  strengthen  his  kingdom, 
and  to  raise  it  into  a  condition  in  which  it  might  be  a  match  for 
Rome.  With  this  object,  in  B.C.  112,  he  boldly  started  forth 
on  a  career  of  Eastern  conquest.  Here  Rome  could  not  inter- 
fere with  him ;  and  in  the  space  of  about  seven  years  he  had 
added  to  his  dominions  the  Lesser  Armenia,  Uolchis,  the  entire 
eastern  coast  of  the  Black  Sea,  the  Chersonesus  Taurica,  or 
kingdom  of  the  Bosporus  (the  modern  Crimea),  and  even  the 
whole  tract  westward  from  that  point  to  the  Tyras,  or  Dniester. 
Having  thus  enlarged  his  dominions,  and  having  further 
strengthened  himself  by  alliances  with  the  wild  tribes  on  the 
Danube,  Getse,  Sarmatse,  and  others,  whom  he  hoped  one  day 
to  launch  upon  Italy,  he  returned  to  Asia  Minor,  and  com- 
menced a  series  of  intrigues  and  intermarriages,  calculated  to 
give  him  greater  power  in  this  quarter. 

Although  it  must  have  been  evident,  both  to  the  Romans  and 
to  Mithridates,  that  peace  between  them  could  not  be  main- 
tained much  longer,  yet  neither  party  was  as  yet  prepared  for 
an  actual  rupture.  The  hands  of  Rome  were  tied  by  the  con- 
dition of  Italy,  where  the  "  Social  War  "  impended ;  and  Mith- 
ridates regarded  it  as  prudent  to  temporize  a  little  longer.  He 
therefore  submitted,  in  B.C.  92,  to  the  decree  of  the  Roman 
Senate,  which  assigned  Cappadocia  to  a  native  monarch,  Ario- 
barzanes,  and  in  B.C.  90  to  another  decree  which  reinstated 
Nicomedes  on  the  throne  of  Bithynia.  When,  however,  in  the 
following  year,  Nicomedes,  encouraged  by  the  Romans,  pro- 
ceeded to  invade  the  Pontic  kingdom,  and  the  demand  which 
Mithridates  made  for  redress  produced  no  result,  it  seemed  to 
him  that  the  time  was  come  when  he  must  change  his  policy, 
and,  laying  aside  all  pretence  of  friendliness,  commence  the 
actual  struggle. 

The  disasters  suffered  by  Mithridates  in  the  Roman  War 


encouraged  the  nations  which  he  had  subjected  in  the  East 
to  revolt.  The  kingdom  of  the  Bosporus  threw  off  its  alle- 
giance, the  Colchians  rebelled,  and  other  nations  in  the  same 
quarter  showed  symptoms  of  disaffection.  Mithridates  pro- 
ceeded to  collect  a  large  fleet  and  army  for  the  reduction  of 
the  rebels,  when  his  enterprise  had  to  be  relinquished  on  ac- 
count of  a  second  and  wholly  unprovoked  Roman  War.  Mu- 
rena,  the  Roman  commander  in  Asia,  suddenly  attacked  him, 
almost  without  a  pretext,  B.C.  83 ;  and  it  was  not  till  the  close 
of  the  following  year  that  peace  was  re-established. 

The  conclusion  of  the  Second  Roman  War  allowed  Mithri- 
dates to  complete  the  reduction  of  his  revolted  subjects,  which 
he  accomplished  without  much  difficulty  between  the  years 
B.C.  81  and  74.  He  suffered,  however,  during  this  interval, 
some  heavy  losses  in  an  attempt  which  he  made  to  subdue  the 
Achaeans  of  the  Caucasus.  But  it  was  not  so  much  in  wars 
as  in  preparations  for  war  that  the  Pontic  monarch  employed 
the  breathing-space  allowed  him  by  the  Romans  after  the  fail- 
ure of  the  attack  of  Murena.  Vast  efforts  were  made  by  him 
to  collect  and  discipline  a  formidable  army ;  troops  were  gath- 
ered from  all  quarters,  even  from  the  banks  of  the  Danube ;  the 
Roman  arms  and  training  were  adopted ;  fresh  alliances  were 
concluded  or  attempted ;  the  fleet  was  raised  to  the  number  of 
400  triremes;  nothing  was  left  undone  that  care  or  energy 
could  accomplish  towards  the  construction  of  a  power  which 
might  fairly  hope  to  hold  its  own  when  the  time  for  a  final  trial 
of  strength  with  Rome  should  arrive. 

The  armed  truce  might  have  continued  some  years  longer, 
for  Mithridates  still  hoped  to  increase  his  power,  and  Rome  was 
occupied  by  the  war  in  Spain  against  the  rebel  Sertorius,  had 
not  the  death  of  Nicomedes  III.,  king  of  Bithynia,  in  B.C.  74, 
brought  about  a  crisis.  That  monarch,  having  no  issue,  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  Attains,  king  of  Pergamus,  in  leaving  his 
dominions  by  will  to  the  Roman  people.  Had  Mithridates 
allowed  Rome  to  take  possession,  the  Pontic  kingdom  would 
have  been  laid  open  to  attack  along  the  whole  of  its  western 
border;  Rome  would  have  been  brought  within  five  days* 
march  of  Sinope ;  and  thus  the  position  of  Pontus,  when  war 
broke  out,  would  have  been  greatly  weakened.     Mithridates 



therefore  resolved  to  seize  Bithynia  before  Rome  could  occupy 
it.  But  this  act  was  equivalent  to  a  declaration  of  war,  since 
the  honor  of  the  great  republic  could  not  allow  of  her  tamely 
submitting  to  the  seizure  of  what  she  regarded  as  her  own 

The  Third  War  of  Mithridates  with  Rome,  which  broke  out 
in  B.C.  74,  was  protracted  to  B.C.  65,  and  thus  lasted  nearly 
nine  years.  The  scene  of  the  war  was  Asia.  Its  result  was 
scarcely  doubtful  from  the  first,  for  the  Asiatic  levies  of  Mith- 
ridates, though  armed  after  the  Roman  fashion  and  disciplined 
to  a  certain  extent,  were  no  match  for  the  trained  veterans  of 
the  Roman  legions.  The  protraction  of  the  war  was  owing, 
in  the  first  place,  to  the  genius  and  energy  of  the  Pontic  mon- 
arch, who  created  army  after  army,  and  who  gradually  learnt 
the  wisdom  of  avoiding  pitched  battles,  and  wasting  the  power 
of  the  enemy  by  cutting  off  his  supplies,  falling  on  his  detach- 
ments, entangling  him  in  difficult  ground,  and  otherwise  har- 
assing and  annoying  him.  It  was  further  owing  to  the  par- 
ticipation in  it  of  a  new  foe,  Tigranes,  who  brought  to  the  aid 
of  his  neighbor  and  connection  a  force  exceeding  his  own, 
and  very  considerable  resources.  Rome  was  barely  capable 
of  contending  at  one  and  the  same  time  with  two  such  king- 
doms as  those  of  Pontus  and  Armenia ;  and  up  to  the  close  of 
B.C.  67,  though  her  generals  had  gained  many  signal  victories, 
she  had  made  no  great  impression  on  either  of  her  two  adver- 
saries. The  war,  if  conducted  without  any  change  of  plan, 
might  still  have  continued  for  another  decade  of  years,  before 
the  power  of  resistance  possessed  by  the  two  kings  would  have 
been  exhausted.  But  the  genius  of  Pompey  devised  a  scheme 
by  which  an  immediate  and  decisive  result  was  made  attain- 
able. His  treaty  with  Phraates,  king  of  Parthia,  brought  a  new 
power  into  the  field — a  power  fully  capable  of  turning  the  bal- 
ance in  favor  of  the  side  whereto  it  attached  itself.  The  atti- 
tude of  Phraates  at  the  opening  of  the  campaign  of  B.C.  66 
paralyzed  Tigranes ;  and  the  Pontic  monarch,  deprived  of  the 
succors  on  which  he  had  hitherto  greatly  depended,  though  he 
still  resisted,  and  even  fought  a  battle  against  his  new  antago- 
nist, was  completely  and  manifestly  overmatched.  Defeated 
near  the  Armenian  border  by  the  Romans  under  Pompey,  and 


forbidden  to  seek  a  refuge  in  Armenia  by  his  timid  and  sus- 
picious brother-in-law,  he  had  no  choice  but  to  yield  his  home 
dominions  to  the  victor,  and  to  retire  to  those  remote  terri- 
tories of  which  he  had  become  possessed  by  conquest.  Even 
Pompey  shrank  from  following  his  beaten  foe  into  these  inhos- 
pitable regions,  and  with  the  passage  of  Mithridates  across  the 
river  Phasis,  his  third  war  with  Rome  came  to  an  end. 

Mithridates,  in  B.C.  65,  retreated  from  Dioscurias  to  Pan- 
ticapaeum,  and  established  himself  in  the  old  kingdom  of  the 
Bosporus.  Such  a  principality  was,  however,  too  narrow  for 
his  ambition.  Having  vainly  attempted  to  come  to  terms  with 
Pompey,  he  formed  the  wild  design  of  renewing  the  struggle 
with  Rome  by  attacking  her  in  a  new  quarter.  It  was  his  in- 
tention to  proceed  westward  round  the  European  side  of  the 
Black  Sea,  and  to  throw  himself  upon  the  Roman  frontier,  per- 
haps even  to  march  upon  Italy.  But  neither  his  soldiers  nor  his 
near  relatives  were  willing  to  embark  in  so  wild  a  project.  Its 
announcement  caused  general  disaffection,  which  at  last  ended 
in  conspiracy.  His  own  son,  Pharnaces,  headed  the  malcon- 
tents ;  and  the  aged  monarch,  finding  no  support  in  any  quar- 
ter, caused  himself  to  be  despatched  by  one  of  his  guards, 
B.C.  63.  The  bulk  of  Pontus  became  a  Roman  province, 
though  a  portion  continued  till  the  time  of  Nero  to  be  ruled  by 
princes  belonging  to  the  old  royal  stock. 

Kingdom  of  Cappadocia. 

After  the  division  of  the  Cappadocian  satrapy  into  two  prov- 
inces, a  northern  and  a  southern,  the  latter  continued  subject 
to  Persia,  the  government  being,  however,  hereditary  in  a 
branch  of  the  same  family  which  had  made  itself  independent 
in  the  northern  province.  The  Datames  and  Ariamnes  of 
Diodorus  held  this  position,  and  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
independent  kings.  It  was  only  when  the  successes  of  Alex- 
ander loosed  the  bands  which  held  the  Persian  empire  together 
(B.C.  331)  that  the  satrap,  Ariarathes,  the  son  of  Ariamnes, 
assumed  the  airs  of  independence,  and,  resisting  the  attack  of 
Perdiccas,  was  by  him  defeated,  made  a  prisoner,  and  crucified, 
B.C.  322. 


Perdiccas,  having  subjected  Cappadocia,  made  over  his  con- 
quest to  Eumenes,  who  continued,  nominally  at  any  rate,  its 
ruler  until  his  death  in  B.C.  316.  Cappadocia  then  revolted 
under  Ariarathes  II.,  the  nephew  of  Ariarathes  I.,  who  de- 
feated and  slew  the  Macedonian  general,  Amyntas,  expelled 
the  foreign  garrisons,  and  re-established  the  independence  of 
his  country.  No  attempt  seems  to  have  been  made  to  dis- 
possess him  either  by  Antigonus  or  Seleucus ;  and  Ariarathes 
left  his  crown  to  the  eldest  of  his  sons,  Ariamnes,  probably 
about  B.C.  280. 

The  next  two  kings,  Ariamnes,  and  his  son,  Ariarathes  III., 
are  little  heard  of  in  history:  they  appear  to  have  reigned 
quietly  but  ingloriously.  A  friendly  connection  between  the 
royal  houses  of  Cappadocia  and  Syria  was  established  in  the 
reign  of  the  former,  who  obtained  as  a  wife  for  his  much- 
loved  son,  Stratonice,  the  daughter  of  Antiochus  Theus.  The 
two  reigns  of  Ariamnes  and  Ariarathes  III.  appear  to  have 
covered  a  space  of  about  sixty  years,  from  B.C.  280  to  220. 
Ariarathes  III.  left  the  crown  to  a  son,  bearing  the  same  name, 
who  was  at  the  time  of  his  father's  death  an  infant. 

The  reign  of  Ariarathes  IV.  is  remarkable  as  being  that 
which  ended  the  comparative  isolation  of  Cappadocia,  and 
brought  the  kingdom  into  close  relation  with  the  other  mon- 
archies of  Asia  Minor,  and  not  only  with  them,  but  also  with 
the  great  republic  of  the  West.  The  history  of  Cappadocia  is 
henceforth  inextricably  intermixed  with  that  of  the  other  king- 
doms of  Western  Asia,  and  has  been  to  a  great  extent  antici- 
pated in  what  has  been  said  of  them.  Ariarathes  IV.,  who  was 
the  first  cousin  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  married  in  B.C.  192  his 
daughter  Antiochis,  and,  being  thus  doubly  connected  with  the 
Seleucid  family,  entered  into  close  alliance  with  the  Syrian 
king,  assisted  him  in  his  war  against  Rome,  and  bore  his  part 
in  the  great  battle  of  Magnesia  by  which  the  power  of  the  Syr- 
ian empire  was  broken,  B.C.  190.  Having  thus  incurred  the 
hostility  of  the  Romans,  and  at  the  same  time  become  sensible 
of  the  greatness  of  their  power,  Ariarathes  proceeded,  in  B.C. 
188,  to  deprecate  their  wrath,  and  by  an  alliance  with  the 
Roman  protege,  Eumenes,  which  was  cemented  by  a  marriage, 
succeeded  in  appeasing  the  offended  republic  and  obtained 


favorable  terms.  Ariarathes  then  assisted  Eumenes  in  his  war 
with  Phamaces  of  Pontus,  B.C.  183  to  179,  after  which  he  was 
engaged  in  a  prolonged  quarrel  with  the  Gauls  of  Galatia,  who 
wished  to  annex  a  portion  of  his  territory.  He  continued  on 
the  most  friendly  terms  with  Rome  from  the  conclusion  of 
peace  in  B.C.  188  till  his  death  in  the  winter  of  B.C.  163-2. 
His  reign  lasted  fifty-eight  years. 

Ariarathes  V.,  sumamed  "  Philopator  "  from  the  aflfection 
which  he  bore  his  father,  maintained  the  alliance  between  Cap- 
padocia  and  Rome  with  great  fidelity.  Solicited  by  Demetrius 
Soter  to  enter  into  alliance  with  him  and  to  connect  his  fam- 
ily with  that  of  the  Seleucidae  once  more  by  a  marriage,  he  de- 
clined out  of  regard  for  Rome.  Angered  by  his  refusal,  Deme- 
trius set  up  against  him  the  pretender,  Orophernes,  B.C.  158, 
and  for  a  time  deprived  him  of  his  kingdom.  The  Romans, 
however,  with  the  help  of  Attains  II.,  restored  him  in  the  year 
following.  After  this  Ariarathes  lent  Attains  important  aid 
in  his  war  with  Prusias  of  Bithynia,  B.C.  156  to  154,  and  when 
Aristonicus  attempted  to  resist  the  Roman  occupation  of  that 
province,  B.C.  133,  he  joined  the  Romans  in  person,  and  lost 
his  life  in  their  cause,  B.C.  131. 

Ariarathes  V.  seems  to  have  left  behind  him  as  many  as  six 
sons,  none  of  whom,  however,  had  reached  maturity.  Lao- 
dice,  therefore,  the  queen-mother,  became  regent ;  and,  being 
an  ambitious  and  unscrupulous  woman,  she  contrived  to  poison 
five  out  of  her  six  sons  before  they  were  of  age  to  reign,  and 
so  kept  the  government  in  her  own  hands.  One,  the  youngest, 
was  preserved,  like  the  Jewish  king,  Joash,  by  his  near  rela- 
tives ;  and,  after  the  death  of  Laodice,  who  fell  a  victim  to  the 
popular  indignation,  he  ascended  the  throne  under  the  name 
of  Ariarathes  VI.  Little  is  known  of  this  king,  except  that  he 
made  alliance  with  Mithridates  the  Great,  and  married  a  sister 
of  that  monarch,  named  also  Laodice,  about  B.C.  115.  By 
her  he  had  two  sons,  both  named  Ariarathes.  He  was  mur- 
dered by  an  emissary  of  Mithridates,  B.C.  96,  when  his  sons 
were  just  growing  into  men. 

On  the  removal  of  Ariarathes  VI.  his  dominions  were  seized 
by  his  brother-in-law,  Mithridates,  who  designed  to  assume 
the  rule  of  them  himself ;  but  Laodice,  the  widow  of  the  late 


king,  having  called  in  the  aid  of  Nicomedes  II.,  king  of  Bithy- 
nia,  whom  she  married,  Mithridates,  in  order  to  retain  his  hold 
on  Cappadocia,  found  it  necessary  to  allow  the  country  its  own 
monarch,  and  accordingly  set  up  as  king,  B.C.  96  or  95,  Ari- 
arathes  VII.,  elder  son  of  Ariarathes  VI.,  and  consequently  the 
legitimate  monarch.  This  prince,  however,  showing  himself 
too  independent,  Mithridates,  in  B.C.  94,  invited  him  to  a  con- 
ference and  slew  him ;  after  which  he  placed  on  the  throne  a 
son  of  his  own,  aged  eight  years,  whose  name  he  changed  to 
Ariarathes.  But  the  Cappadocians  rose  in  rebellion  against 
this  attempt,  and  raised  to  the  throne  another  Ariarathes,  the 
son  of  Ariarathes  VI.,  and  the  younger  brother  of  Ariarathes 
VII.,  who  endeavored  to  establish  himself,  but  was  driven  out 
by  Mithridates  and  died  shortly  afterwards.  By  the  death  of 
this  prince  the  old  royal  family  of  Cappadocia  became  extinct ; 
and  though  pretenders  to  the  throne,  claiming  a  royal  descent, 
were  put  forward  both  by  Mithridates  and  Nicomedes,  yet, 
as  the  nullity  of  these  claims  was  patent,  Rome  permitted  the 
Cappadocians  to  choose  themselves  a  new  sovereign,  which 
they  did  in  B.C.  93,  when  Ariobarzanes  was  proclaimed  king. 

Ariobarzanes  had  scarcely  ascended  the  throne  when  he 
was  expelled  by  Tigranes,  king  of  Armenia,  and  forced  to  fly 
to  Rome  for  protection.  The  Romans  reinstated  him  in  the 
next  year,  B.C.  92;  and  he  reigned  in  peace  for  four  years, 
B.C.  92  to  88,  when  he  was  again  ejected,  this  time  by  Mith- 
ridates, who  seized  his  territories,  and  retained  possession  of 
them  during  the  whole  of  his  first  war  with  the  Romans.  At 
the  peace,  made  in  B.C.  84,  Ariobarzanes  was  once  more  re- 
stored. He  now  continued  undisturbed  till  B.C.  67,  when 
Mithridates  and  Tigranes  in  combination  drove  him  from  his 
kingdom  for  the  third  time,  after  which,  in  B.C.  66,  he  received 
his  third  restoration  at  the  hands  of  Pompey.  About  two  years 
later  he  abdicated  in  favor  of  his  son,  Ariobarzanes. 

Ariobarzanes  II.,  the  friend  of  Cicero,  began  to  reign  prob- 
ably in  B.C.  64.  He  took  the  titles  of  "  Eusebes  "  (the  Pious) 
and  "  Philorhomaeus  "  (lover  of  the  Romans),  and  appears  to 
have  aimed  steadily  at  deserving  the  latter  appellation.  It  was 
difBcult,  however,  to  please  all  parties  in  the  civil  wars.  Ario- 
barzanes sided  with  Pompey  against  Caesar,  and  owed  it  to  the 


magnanimity  of  the  latter  that  he  was  not  deprived  of  his  king- 
dom after  PharsaUa,  but  forgiven  and  allowed  an  increase  of 
territory.  In  the  next  civil  war  he  was  less  fortunate.  Having 
ventured  to  oppose  the  "  Liberators,"  he  was  seized  and  put 
to  death  by  Cassius,  B.C.  42,  after  he  had  reigned  between 
twenty-one  and  twenty-two  years. 

After  Philippi,  Antony  conferred  the  crown  of  Cappadocia 
on  Ariarathes  IX.,  the  son  (apparently)  of  the  last  king.  It  was 
not  long,  however,  before  this  prince  lost  his  favor,  and,  in  B.C. 
36,  he  was  put  to  death  by  Antony's  orders,  who  wanted  his 
throne  for  Archelaiis,  one  of  his  creatures.  Archelaiis,  the 
grandson  of  Mithridates's  general  of  the  same  name,  ruled 
Cappadocia  from  B.C.  36  to  A.D.  15,  when  he  was  summoned 
to  Rome  by  Tiberius,  who  had  been  oiTended  by  the  circum- 
stance that  Archelaiis  paid  him  no  attention  when  he  was  in 
voluntary  exile  at  Rhodes.  Archelaiis  in  vain  endeavored  to 
excuse  himself:  he  was  retained  at  Rome  by  the  tyrant,  and 
died  there,  either  of  a  disease,  or  possibly  by  his  own  hand, 
about  A.D.  17.  His  kingdom  was  then  reduced  into  the  form 
of  a  Roman  province. 

Kingdom  of  the  Greater  Armenia. 

Armenia,  which,  from  the  date  of  the  battle  of  Ipsus,  B.C. 
301,  formed  a  portion  of  the  empire  of  the  Seleucidae,  revolted 
on  the  defeat  of  Antiochus  the  Great  by  the  Romans,  B.C.  190, 
and  became  split  up  into  two  kingdoms,  Armenia  Major  and 
Armenia  Minor,  the  latter  lying  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Eu- 
phrates. The  first  king  of  Armenia  Major  was  Artaxias,  who 
had  been  a  general  of  Antiochus.  He  built  Artaxata,  the  cap- 
ital, and  reigned  probably  about  twenty-five  years,  when  he 
was  attacked,  defeated,  and  made  prisoner  by  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  about  B.C.  165,  who  recovered  Armenia  to  the 
Syrian  empire.  How  long  the  subjection  continued  is  uncer- 
tain ;  but  about  B.C.  100  we  find  an  Armenian  king  mentioned, 
who  seems  to  be  independent,  and  who  carries  on  war  with  the 
Parthian  monarch,  Mithridates.  This  king,  who  is  called  by 
Justin  Ortoadistes,  appears  to  have  been  succeeded,  B.C.  96, 
by  the  greatest  of  the  Armenian  monarchs,  Tig^nes  I.,  who 



took  the  part  already  described  in  the  great  war  between  Mith- 
ridates  of  Pontus  and  the  Romans. 

Tigranes  I.,  who  was  a  descendant  of  Artaxias,  raised  Ar- 
menia from  the  condition  of  a  petty  kingdom  to  a  powerful 
and  extensive  empire.  Compelled  in  his  early  years  to  pur- 
chase a  peace  of  the  Parthians  by  a  cession  of  territory,  he  soon 
afterwards,  about  B.C.  90  to  87,  not  only  recovered  his  prov- 
inces, but  added  to  his  dominions  the  important  countries  of 
Atropatene,  and  Gordyene  (or  Upper  Mesopotamia),  chastis- 
ing the  Parthian  monarch  on  his  own  soil,  and  gaining  for  him- 
self a  great  reputation.  He  then  determined  to  attack  the 
Syrian  kingdom,  which  was  verging  to  its  fall  under  Philip, 
son  of  Grypus.  Having  crossed  the  Euphrates,  he  easily  made 
himself  master  of  the  entire  Syrian  territory,  including  the 
province  of  Cilicia ;  and  for  fourteen  years,  B.C.  83  to  69,  his 
dominions  reached  across  the  whole  of  Western  Asia,  from 
the  borders  of  Pamphylia  to  the  shores  of  the  Caspian.  It  was 
during  these  years  that  he  founded  his  great  capital  of  Tigrano- 
certa,  and  gave  grievous  offense  to  Rome  by  his  conduct 
towards  her  protege,  Ariobarzanes  of  Cappadocia,  whose  terri- 
tory he  ravaged,  B.C.  75,  carrying  off  more  than  300,000 
people.  Soon  afterwards  he  added  to  the  offense  by  receiving 
and  supporting  Mithridates,  and  thus  he  drew  the  Roman  arms 
upon  himself  and  his  kingdom. 

The  result  of  the  war  with  Rome  was  the  loss  by  Tigranes 
of  all  his  conquests.  He  retained  merely  his  original  kingdom 
of  the  Greater  Armenia.  The  fidelity,  however,  which  he 
showed  towards  Pompey  led  to  the  enlargement  of  his  domin- 
ions, B.C.  65,  by  the  addition  of  Gordyene;  and  the  Roman 
alliance  was  otherwise  serviceable  to  him  in  the  war  which  he 
continued  to  wage  with  Parthia.  He  appears  to  have  died 
about  B.C.  55,  eleven  years  after  the  conclusion  of  his  peace 
with  Rome,  and  one  year  before  the  expedition  of  Crassus. 

Tigranes  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Artavasdes  I.,  who  be- 
gan his  reign  by  following  out  the  later  policy  of  his  father, 
and  endeavoring  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  the  Romans. 
He  bore  a  part  in  the  great  expedition  of  Crassus  against  the 
Parthians,  B.C.  54 ;  and  it  was  only  when  Orodes,  the  Parthian 
king,  advanced  against  him,  and  he  was  unable  to  obtain  any 


assistance  from  Rome,  that  he  consented  to  a  Parthian  alliance, 
and  gave  his  daughter  in  marriage  to  Orodes's  son,  Pacorus. 
This  led  him,  when  Pacorus  invaded  Syria,  B.C.  51,  to  take  up 
an  attitude  of  hostility  to  the  Romans.  But,  at  a  later  date, 
when  Antony  threatened  the  Parthians,  B.C.  36,  he  again  es- 
poused the  Roman  side,  and  took  part  in  that  general's  ex- 
pedition into  Media  Atropatene,  which  turned  out  unfortu- 
nately. Antony  attributed  his  repulse  to  Artavasdes  deserting 
him  in  his  difficulties,  and  therefore  invaded  his  country,  in 
B.C.  34,  obtained  possession  of  his  person,  and  carried  him  into 
captivity.  Cleopatra  afterwards,  B.C.  30,  put  Artavasdes  to 

On  the  captivity  of  Artavasdes,  the  Armenians  conferred  the 
royal  dignity  on  Artaxias  II.,  his  son.  At  first  the  Romans, 
in  conjunction  with  Artavasdes  of  Atropatene,  drove  him  out ; 
but  during  the  struggle  between  Octavius  and  Antony  he  re- 
turned, defeated  the  Atropatenian  monarch,  and  took  him  pris- 
oner. At  the  same  time,  he  gave  command  for  a  massacre  of 
all  the  Romans  in  Armenia,  which  accordingly  took  place.  He 
reigned  from  B.C.  34  to  19,  when  he  was  murdered  by  his  re- 

The  Romans  now  brought  forward  a  candidate  for  the  throne 
in  the  person  of  Tigranes,  the  brother  of  Artaxias  II.,  who  was 
installed  in  his  kingdom  by  Tiberius  at  the  command  of  Au- 
gustus, and  ruled  the  country  as  Tigranes  II.  From  this  time 
Armenian  independence  was  really  at  an  end.  The  titular 
monarchs  were  mere  puppets,  maintained  in  their  position  by 
the  Roman  emperors  or  the  Parthian  kings,  who  alternately 
exercised  a  prepondering  influence  over  the  country.  At 
length  Armenia  was  made  into  a  Roman  province  by  Trajan, 
B.C.  114. 

Kingdom  of  Armenia  Minor. 

The  kingdom  of  Armenia  Minor  was  founded  by  Zariadras, 
a  general  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  about  the  same  time  that 
Artaxias  founded  the  kingdom  of  Armenia  Major,  i.e.,  about 
B.C.  190.  It  continued  a  separate  state,  governed  by  the  de- 
scendants of  the  founder,  till  the  time  of  Mithridates  of  Pontus, 
when  it  was  annexed  to  his  dominions  by  that  ambitious  prince. 


Subsequently  it  fell  almost  wholly  under  the  power  of  the  Ro- 
mans, and  was  generally  attached  to  one  or  other  of  the  neigh- 
boring kingdoms,  until  the  reign  of  Vespasian,  when  it  was 
converted  into  a  Roman  province.  The  names  of  the  early 
kings  after  Zariadras  are  unknown.  Among  the  later  were  a 
Cotys,  contemporary  with  Caligula,  A.D.  47,  and  an  Aristobu- 
lus,  contemporary  with  Nero,  A.D.  54.  The  latter  prince  be- 
longed to  the  family  of  the  Herods. 

Kingdom  of  Bactria. 

The  Bactrian  satrapy  was  for  some  time  after  the  death  of 
Alexander  only  nominally  subject  to  any  of  the  so-called  "  Suc- 
cessors." But,  about  B.C.  305,  Seleucus  Nicator  in  his  Orien- 
tal expedition  received  the  submission  of  the  governor;  and 
from  that  date  till  the  reign  of  his  grandson,  Antiochus  Theus, 
Bactria  continued  to  be  a  province  of  the  Syrian  empire.  Then, 
however,  the  personal  character  of  Antiochus  Theus,  and  his 
entanglement  in  a  war  with  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  which  taxed 
his  powers  to  the  utmost,  encouraged  the  remoter  provinces  to 
revolt;  and  about  B.C.  255  Diodotus,  satrap  of  Bactria,  de- 
clared himself  independent,  and  became  the  founder  of  the 
Bactrian  kingdom. 

Little  is  known  of  Diodotus  I.  beyond  the  date  of  his  acces- 
sion, and  the  fact  of  the  continuance  of  his  reign  from  about 
B.C.  255  to  237.  It  is  possible  that  about  B.C.  244  he  (nom- 
inally at  any  rate)  submitted  to  Ptolemy  Euergetes ;  and  prob- 
able that  when  Seleucus  Callinicus  made  his  first  attack  on 
Parthia,  Diodotus  lent  him  assistance,  and  obtained  in  return 
an  acknowledgment  of  his  independence.  He  appears  to  have 
died  during  the  expedition  of  Callinicus,  which  is  assigned 
probably  to  the  year  B.C.  237.  At  his  death  he  left  the  crown 
to  a  son  of  the  same  name. 

Diodotus  II.,  who  succeeded  Diodotus  I.  about  B.C.  237, 
pursued  a  policy  quite  different  from  that  of  his  father.  In- 
stead of  lending  aid  to  Callinicus,  he  concluded  a  treaty  with 
Arsaces  II.  (Tiridates),  the  Parthian  king,  and  probably  assist- 
ed him  in  the  great  battle  by  which  Parthian  independence  was 
regarded  as  finally  established.     Nothing  more  is  known  of 


this  king ;  nor  can  it  even  be  determined  whether  it  was  he  or 
his  son  who  was  removed  by  Euthydemus,  when  that  prince 
seized  the  crown,  about  B.C.  222. 

Euthydemus,  the  third  known  Bactrian  king,  was  a  Greek 
of  Magnesia,  in  Asia  Minor.  The  circumstances  under  which 
he  seized  the  crown  are  unknown  to  us ;  but  it  appears  that  he 
had  been  king  for  some  considerable  time  when  Antiochus  the 
Great,  having  made  peace  with  Arsaces,  the  third  Parthian 
monarch,  turned  his  arms  against  Bactria  with  the  view  of  re- 
ducing it  to  subjection.  In  a  battle  fought  on  the  Arius  (Heri- 
Rud),  Euthydemus  was  defeated ;  but  Antiochus,  who  received 
a  wound  in  the  engagement,  shortly  after  granted  him  terms, 
promised  to  give  one  of  his  daughters  in  marriage  to  Demetri- 
us, Euthydemus's  son,  and  left  him  in  quiet  possession  of  his 
dominions,  B.C.  206.  The  Indian  conquests  of  Demetrius 
seem  to  have  commenced  soon  afterwards,  while  his  father  was 
still  living.  They  were  on  the  south  side  of  the  Paropamisus, 
in  the  modern  Candahar  and  Cabul. 

Demetrius,  who  is  proved  by  his  coins  to  have  been  king  of 
Bactria,  no  doubt  succeeded  his  father.  He  engaged  in  an  im- 
portant series  of  conquests — partly  as  crown  prince,  partly  as 
king — on  the  southern  side  of  the  Paropamisus,  which  extend- 
ed probably  over  the  greater  portion  of  Afghanistan,  and  may 
even  have  embraced  some  districts  of  the  Punjab  region.  The 
city  of  Demetrias  in  Arachosia,  and  that  of  Euthydemeia  on 
the  Hydaspes,  are  with  reason  regarded  as  traces  of  these  con- 
quests. While  Demetrius  was  thus  employed,  a  rebel  named 
Eucratides  seems  to  have  supplanted  him  at  home;  and  the 
reigns  of  these  monarchs  were  for  some  time  parallel,  De- 
metrius ruling  on  the  south  and  Eucratides  on  the  north  side 
of  the  mountain.* 

After  the  death  of  Demetrius,  Eucratides  appears  to  have 
reigned  over  both  kingdoms.  He  was  a  monarch  of  consid- 
erable vigor  and  activity,  and  pushed  his  conquests  deep  into 
the  Punjab  region.  He  lost,  however,  a  portion  of  his  home 
territory  to  the  Parthian  princes.       On  his  return  from  an 

*  The  dates  for  the  accession  and  death  of  Demetrius  are  exceed- 
ingly doubtful.  The  best  authorities  assign  him,  conjccturally,  the  space 
from  about  B.C.  200  to  180. 


Indian  expedition  he  was  waylaid  and  slain  by  his  own  son, 
whom  he  had  previously  associated  in  the  kingdom.  His 
reign  must  have  lasted  from  about  B.C.  i8o  to  i6o. 

The  son  of  Eucratides,  who  after  his  murder  became  sole 
monarch  of  Bactria,  appears  to  have  been  a  certain  Heliocles, 
who  took  the  title  of  AUaLo^,  "  the  Just,"  and  reigned  over 
Bactria  probably  from  about  B.C.  i6o  to  150.  Nothing  is 
known  in  detail  of  the  circumstances  of  his  reign ;  but  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  Bactria  now  rapidly  declined  in  power, 
being  pressed  upon  by  the  Scythian  nomades  towards  the 
north,  and  by  the  Parthians  on  the  west  and  south,  and  con- 
tinually losing  one  province  after  another  to  the  invaders.  It 
was  in  vain  that  these  unhappy  Greeks  implored  in  their  isola- 
tion the  aid  of  their  Syrian  brethren  against  the  constant  en- 
croachments of  the  barbarians.  The  expedition  of  Demetrius 
Nicator,  undertaken  for  their  relief,  B.C.  142,  terminated  in  his 
defeat  and  capture.  Hellenic  culture  and  civilization  proved 
in  this  quarter  no  match  for  barbaric  force,  and  had  of  neces- 
sity to  give  way  and  retreat.  After  the  reign  of  Heliocles,  we 
have  no  further  indication  of  Greek  rulers  to  the  north  of  the 
Paropamisus.  On  the  southern  side  of  the  mountain-chain 
somewhat  more  of  tenacity  was  shown.  In  Cabul  and  Canda- 
har  Greek  kingdoms,  ofifshoots  of  the  Bactrian,  continued  to 
exist  down  to  about  B.C.  80,  when  the  last  remnant  of  Hellenic 
power  in  this  quarter  was  swept  away  by  the  Yue-chi  and 
other  Scythic,  or  Tartar  races. 

Kingdom  of  Parthia. 

The  Parthian  kingdom  is  said  to  have  been  founded  nearly 
at  the  same  time  with  the  Bactrian,  during  the  reign  of  An- 
tiochus  Theus  in  Syria,  about  B.C.  255  or  256.  It  originated, 
however,  not  in  the  revolt  of  a  satrap,  but  in  the  uprising  of  a 
nation.  Reinforced  by  a  kindred  body  of  Turanians  from  be- 
yond the  Jaxartes,  the  Parthi  of  the  region  lying  south-east  of 
the  Caspian,  rose  in  revolt  against  their  Grecian  masters,  and 
succeeded  in  establishing  their  independence.  From  a  small 
beginning  they  gradually  spread  their  power  over  the  greater 
part  of  Western  Asia,  being  for  a  considerable  period  lords  of 


all  the  countries  between  the  Euphrates  and  the  Sutlej.  As 
the  Parthian  kingdom,  though  a  fragment  of  the  empire  of 
Alexander,  was  never  absorbed  into  that  of  the  Romans,  but 
continued  to  exist  side  by  side  with  the  Roman  empire  during 
the  most  flourishing  period  of  the  latter,  it  is  proposed  to  re- 
serve the  details  of  the  history  for  the  next  Book,  and  to  give 
only  this  brief  notice  of  the  general  character  of  the  monarchy 
in  the  present  place. 

Kingdom  ofjiidaa. 

Though  the  Jewish  kingdom,  which  came  into  being  mid- 
way in  the  Syrian  period,  originating  in  the  intolerable  cruel- 
ties and  oppressions  of  the  Syrian  kings,  was  geographically 
of  such  small  extent  as  scarcely  to  claim  distinct  treatment  in  a 
work  which  must  needs  omit  to  notice  many  of  the  lesser  states 
and  kingdoms,  yet  the  undying  interest  which  attaches  to  the 
Jewish  people,  and  the  vast  influence  which  the  nation  has  ex- 
ercised over  the  progress  of  civilization,  will  justify,  it  is 
thought,  in  the  present  place,  not  only  on  account  of  the  king- 
dom, but  a  sketch  of  the  general  history  of  the  nation  from  the 
time  when,  as  related  in  the  first  Book,  it  was  carried  into 
captivity  by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  the  period  of  the  re-establish- 
ment of  independence.  This  history  naturally  divides  itself 
into  two  periods: — i.  From  the  Captivity  to  the  fall  of  the 
Persian  empire,  B.C.  586  to  323 ;  and,  2.  From  the  fall  of  the 
Persian  empire  to  the  re-establishment  of  an  independent  king- 
dom, B.C.  323  to  168.  The  history  of  the  kingdom  may  also 
be  most  conveniently  treated  in  two  portions: — i.  The  Mac- 
cabee  period,  from  B.C.  168  to  37 ;  and,  2.  The  period  of  the 
Herods,  B.C.  37  to  A.D.  44,  when  Judaea  became  finally  a  Ro- 
man province.  Thus  the  entire  history  will  fall  under  four 

First  Period. — About  fifty  years  after  the  completion  of  the 
Captivity  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  nearly  seventy  years  after 
its  commencement,  a  great  change  was  effected  in  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Jewish  people  by  Cyrus.  That  monarch,  having 
captured  Babylon  in  the  year  B.C.  538,  found  among  his  new 
subjects  an  oppressed  race,  in  whose  religion  he  recognized  a 


considerable  resemblance  to  his  own,  and  in  whose  fortunes  he 
therefore  took  a  special  interest.  Learning  that  they  had  been 
violently  removed  from  their  own  country  two  generations 
previously,  and  finding  that  numbers  of  them  had  a  strong  de- 
sire to  return,  he  gave  permission  that  such  as  wished  might 
go  back  and  re-establish  themselves  in  their  country.  Accord- 
ingly, a  colony,  numbering  42,360  persons,  besides  their  ser- 
vants, set  out  from  Babylonia,  and  made  their  way  to  Jerusa- 
lem; in  or  near  which  the  greater  number  of  them  settled. 
This  colony,  at  the  head  of  which  was  Zerubbabel,  a  descend- 
ant of  the  old  line  of  kings,  was  afterwards  strengthened  by  two 
others,  one  led  by  Ezra,  in  B.C.  458,  and  the  other  by  Nehe- 
miah,  in  B.C.  445.  Besides  these  known  accessions,  there  was 
probably  also  for  many  years  a  continual  influx  of  individuals, 
or  families,  who  were  attracted  to  their  own  land,  not  only  by 
the  love  of  country,  which  has  always  been  so  especially  strong 
in  the  Jews,  but  also  by  motives  of  religion.  Still  great  num- 
bers of  Jews,  probably  half  the  nation,  remained  where  they 
had  so  long  resided,  in  Babylonia  and  the  adjoining  countries. 

The  exiles  who  returned  under  Zerubbabel  belonged  pre- 
dominantly, if  not  exclusively,  to  three  tribes,  Judah,  Levi,  and 
Benjamin.  It  was  their  first  object  to  rebuild  their  famous 
Temple  on  its  former  site,  and  to  re-establish  the  old  Temple- 
service.  But  in  this  work  they  were  greatly  hindered  by  their 
neighbors.  A  mixed  race,  partly  Israelite,  partly  foreign — 
including  Babylonians,  Persians,  Elamites,  Arabs,  and  others 
— had  repeopled  the  old  kingdom  of  Samaria,  and  established 
there  a  mongrel  worship,  in  part  Jehovistic,  in  part  idolatrous. 
On  the  first  arrival  of  the  Jewish  colony,  this  mixed  race  pro- 
posed to  join  the  new-comers  in  the  erection  of  their  Temple, 
and  to  make  it  a  common  sanctuary  open  both  to  themselves 
and  the  Jews.  But  such  a  course  would  have  been  dangerous 
to  the  purity  of  religion;  and  Zerubbabel  very  properly  de- 
clined the  offer.  His  refusal  stirred  up  a  spirit  of  hostility 
among  the  "  Samaritans ; "  which  showed  itself  in  prolonged 
efforts  to  prevent  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  and  the  city — 
efforts  which  were  for  a  while  successful,  considerably  delay- 
ing, though  they  could  not  finally  defeat,  the  work. 

The  favor  of  Darius  Hystaspis  allowed  the  Jews  to  complete 


their  Temple,  and  to  establish  themselves  firmly  in  the  country 
of  their  ancestors,  despite  the  ill-will  of  the  surrounding  na- 
tions and  tribes.  But  in  the  reign  of  his  successor,  Xerxes, 
a  terrible  danger  was  incurred.  That  weak  prince  allowed  his 
minister,  Haman  (Omanes?),  to  persuade  him  that  it  would 
be  for  the  advantage  of  his  empire,  if  the  Jews,  who  were  to  be 
found  in  various  parts  of  his  dominions,  always  a  distinct  race, 
not  amalgamating  with  those  among  whom  they  lived,  could 
be  quietly  got  rid  of.  Having  obtained  the  monarch's  consent, 
he  planned  and  prepared  a  general  massacre,  by  which  on  one 
day  the  whole  race  was  to  be  swept  from  the  earth.  Fortu- 
nately for  the  doomed  nation,  the  inclination  of  the  fickle  king 
had  shifted  before  the  day  of  execution  came,  the  interposition 
of  the  wife  in  favor  at  the  time,  who  was  a  Jewess,  having 
availed  for  the  preservation  of  her  people.  Instead  of  being 
taken  unawares  by  their  enemies,  and  massacred  unresistingly, 
the  Jews  were  everywhere  warned  of  their  danger  and  allowed 
to  stand  on  their  defense.  The  weight  of  the  government  was 
thrown  on  their  side ;  and  the  result  was  that,  wherever  they 
were  attacked,  they  triumphed,  and  improved  their  future  po- 
sition by  the  destruction  of  all  their  most  bitter  adversaries. 

Though  the  Jews  had  thus  escaped  this  great  danger,  and 
had  strengthened  their  position  by  the  destruction  of  so  many 
of  their  enemies,  yet  their  continued  existence  as  a  separate 
nation  was  still  far  from  secure.  Two  causes  imperilled  it.  In 
spite  of  the  refusal  to  allow  foreigners,  even  though  partially 
allied  in  race,  to  take  part  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple,  a 
tendency  showed  itself,  as  time  went  on,  towards  a  fusion 
with  the  surrounding  peoples.  The  practice  of  intermarriage 
with  these  peoples  commenced,  and  had  gained  a  great  head 
when  Ezra  brought  his  colony  from  Babylon  in  the  seventh 
year  of  Longimanus,  B.C.  458.  By  the  earnest  efforts,  first 
of  Ezra,  and  then  of  Nehemiah,  about  B.C.  434,  this  evil  was 

The  other  peril  was  of  a  different  kind.  Jerusalem,  though 
rebuilt  on  the  old  site  by  the  colony  of  Zerubbabel,  was  without 
walls  or  other  defenses,  and  thus  lay  open  to  attack  on  the 
part  of  any  hostile  neighbor.  The  authority  of  Persia  was 
weak  in  the  more  remote  provinces,  which  not  unfrequently 


revolted,  and  remained  for  years  in  a  state  bordering  on  an- 
archy. It  was  an  important  gain  to  the  Jews  when,  in  the 
twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes,  Nehemiah  came  down  from  the 
court  with  authority  to  refortify  the  city,  and  effected  his  pur- 
pose despite  the  opposition  which  he  encountered,  B.C.  445. 

It  was  a  feature  of  the  Persian  system  to  allow  the  nations 
under  their  rule  a  good  deal  of  self-government  and  internal 
independence.  Judaea  was  a  portion  of  the  Syrian  satrapy,  and 
had  no  doubt  to  submit  to  such  requisitions  as  the  Syrian  satrap 
made  upon  it  for  men  and  money.  But,  so  long  as  these  requi- 
sitions were  complied  with,  there  was  not  much  further  inter- 
ference with  the  people,  or  with  their  mode  of  managing  their 
own  affairs.  Occasionally  a  local  governor  (Tirshatha),  with 
a  rank  and  title  below  those  of  a  satrap,  was  appointed  by  the 
Crown  to  superintend  Judaea,  or  Jerusalem ;  but  these  officers 
do  not  appear  to  have  succeeded  each  other  with  regularity, 
and,  when  they  were  appointed,  it  would  seem  that  they  were 
always  natives.  In  default  of  a  regular  succession  of  such 
governors,  the  High-priests  came  to  be  regarded  as  not  merely 
the  religious  but  also  the  political  heads  of  the  nation,  and  the 
general  direction  of  affairs  fell  into  their  hands. 

Second  Period. — In  the  partitions  which  were  made  of  Alex- 
ander's dominions  at  Babylon  and  at  Triparadisus,  the  Syrian 
satrapy,  which  included  Palestine,  was  constituted  a  separate 
government.  But  a  very  little  time  elapsed  before  Ptolemy 
Lagi  annexed  the  satrapy,  the  southern  division  of  which  con- 
tinued thenceforward,  except  during  short  intervals,  a  portion 
of  the  kingdom  of  Egypt,  until  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Epiphanes. 
It  is  uncertain  whether  Alexander  assigned  the  Jews  any  spe- 
cial privileges  in  the  great  city  which  he  founded  in  Egypt ;  but 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  early  Ptolemies  highly  favored 
this  class  of  their  subjects,  attracting  them  in  vast  numbers 
to  their  capital,  encouraging  their  literature,  and  granting  them 
many  privileges.  The  subjection  of  Judaea  to  Egypt  lasted 
from  B.C.  320  to  B.C.  203  ;  and  though  the  country  was  during 
this  space  ravaged  more  than  once  by  the  forces  of  contending 
armies,  yet  on  the  whole  the  time  must  be  regarded  as  one 
of  general  peace  and  prosperity.  The  High-priests  continued 
to  be  at  the  head  of  the  state,  and  ruled  Judaea  without  much 
oppressive  interference  from  the  Egyptians. 


Towards  the  close  of  the  Ptolemaic  period,  the  Jews  began 
to  have  serious  cause  of  complaint  against  their  Egyptian  rul- 
ers. The  fourth  Ptolemy  (Philopator),  a  weak  and  debauched 
prince,  attempted  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  the  Jewish  Temple 
by  entering  it,  and,  when  his  attempt  was  frustrated,  sought  to 
revenge  himself  by  punishing  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  who  had 
done  him  no  injury  at  all.  It  was  the  natural  result  of  these 
violent  proceedings  that  the  Jews,  in  disgust  and  alarm,  should 
seek  a  protector  elsewhere.  Accordingly,  when  Antiochus  the 
Great,  in  the  infancy  of  Ptolemy  Epiphanes,  determined  to 
attack  Eg^'pt,  and  to  annex,  if  possible,  to  his  own  dominions 
the  valuable  maritime  tract  extending  from  his  province  of 
Upper  Syria  to  the  Sinaitic  Desert,  the  Jews  voluntarily  joined 
him ;  and  though  Ptolemy's  general,  Scopas,  recovered  most 
of  what  had  been  lost,  yet  Antiochus,  by  the  victory  of  Paneas, 
B.C.  198,  was  left  in  final  possession  of  the  whole  region,  which 
thenceforth,  though  often  disputed  by  Egypt,  became  a  pos- 
session of  the  Syrian  kings. 

Under  Antiochus  the  Great,  and  for  a  time  under  his  elder 
son,  Seleucus  Philopator,  the  Jews  had  no  reason  to  repent  the 
exchange  they  had  made.  Both  Antiochus,  and  Seleucus  for 
a  while,  respected  the  privileges  of  the  nation,  and  abstained 
from  any  proceedings  that  could  give  umbrage  to  their  new 
subjects.  But  towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Seleucus,  an 
important  change  of  policy  took  place.  The  wealth  of  the 
Jewish  Temple  being  reported  to  the  Syrian  monarch,  and 
his  own  needs  being  great,  he  made  an  attempt  to  appropri- 
ate the  sacred  treasure,  which  was  however  frustrated,  either 
by  miracle,  or  by  the  contrivance  of  the  High-priest  Onias. 
This  unwarrantable  attempt  of  Seleucus  was  followed  by 
worse  outrages  in  the  reign  of  his  brother  and  successor,  An- 
tiochus Epiphanes.  Not  only  did  that  monarch  sell  the  office 
of  High-priest,  first  to  Jason  and  then  to  Menelaiis,  but  he 
endeavored  to  effect  by  systematic  proceedings  the  complete 
Hellenization  of  the  Jews,  whereto  a  party  in  the  nation  was 
already  sufficiently  inclined.  Further,  having,  by  his  own 
iniquitous  proceedings  in  the  matter  of  the  high-priesthood, 
given  occasion  to  a  civil  war  between  the  rival  claimants,  he 
chose  to  regard  the  war  as  rebellion  against  his  authority,  and 


on  his  return  from  his  second  Egyptian  campaign,  B.C.  170, 
took  possession  of  Jerusalem,  and  gave  it  up  to  massacre  and 
pillage.  At  the  same  time  he  plundered  the  Temple  of  its 
sacred  vessels  and  treasures.  Nor  was  this  all.  Two  years 
afterwards,  B.C.  168,  he  caused  Jerusalem  to  be  occupied  a 
second  time  by  an  armed  force,  set  up  an  idol  altar  in  the 
Temple,  and  caused  sacrifice  to  be  offered  there  to  Jupiter 
Olympius.  The  Jews  were  forbidden  any  longer  to  observe 
the  Law,  and  were  to  be  Hellenized  by  main  force.  Hence 
the  rising  under  the  Maccabees,  and  the  gradual  re-establish- 
ment of  independence. 

Third  Period. — At  first  the  patriots  who  rose  up  against  the 
attempt  to  annihilate  the  national  religion  and  life  were  a 
scanty  band,  maintaining  themselves  with  difficulty  in  the 
mountains  against  the  forces  of  the  Syrian  kings.  Jerusalem, 
which  was  won  by  Judas  Maccabaeus,  was  lost  again  at  his 
death;  and  it  was  not  till  about  B.C.  153,  fourteen  years  after 
the  first  revolt,  that  the  struggle  entered  on  a  new  phase  in 
consequence  of  the  contentions  which  then  began  between 
different  pretenders  to  the  Syrian  throne.  When  war  arose  be- 
tween Demetrius  and  Alexander  Balas,  the  support  of  the 
Jews  was  felt  to  be  of  importance  by  both  parties.  Both,  con- 
sequently, made  overtures  to  Jonathan,  the  third  Maccabee 
prince,  who  was  shortly  recognized  not  only  as  prince,  but 
also  as  High-priest  of  the  nation.  From  this  time,  as  there 
were  almost  constant  disputes  between  rival  claimants  of  the 
crown  in  Syria,  the  Jews  were  able  to  maintain  themselves 
with  comparative  ease.  Once  or  twice,  during  a  pause  in  the 
Syrian  contest,  they  were  attacked  and  were  forced  to  make  a 
temporary  submission.  But  the  general  result  was  that  they 
maintained,  and  indeed  continually  enlarged,  their  indepen- 
dence. For  some  time  they  did  not  object  to  acknowledge  the 
Syrian  monarch  as  their  suzerain,  and  to  pay  him  an  annual 
tribute;  but  after  the  death  of  Antiochus  VH.  (Sidetes)  all 
such  payments  seem  to  have  ceased,  and  the  complete  inde- 
pendence of  the  country  was  established.  Coins  were  struck 
bearing  the  name  of  the  Maccabee  prince,  and  the  title  of 
"  King."  Judaea  was  indeed  from  this  time  as  powerful  a 
monarchy  as  Syria.    John  Hyrcanus  conquered  Samaria  and 


Idumaea,  and  thus  largely  extended  the  Jewish  boundaries, 
exactly  at  the  time  when  those  of  Syria  were  undergoing  rapid 

The  deliverance  of  the  state  from  any  further  fear  of  sub- 
jection by  Syria  was  followed  almost  immediately  by  internal 
quarrels  and  dissensions,  which  led  naturally  to  the  acceptance 
of  a  position  of  subordination  under  another  power.  The 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  hitherto  mere  religious  sects,  be- 
came transformed  into  political  factions.  Civil  wars  broke  out. 
The  members  of  the  royal  family  quarrelled  with  each  other, 
and  the  different  pretenders  to  the  crown  appealed  for  assist- 
ance to  foreign  nations.  About  B.C.  63  the  Romans  entered 
upon  the  scene ;  and  for  the  last  twenty-six  years  of  the  Mac- 
cabee  period — B.C.  63  to  37 — while  feeble  princes  of  the  once 
mighty  Asmonaean  family  still  nominally  held  the  throne,  the 
Great  Republic  was  really  supreme  in  Palestine,  took  tribute, 
and  appointed  governors,  or  sanctioned  the  rule  of  kings,  at 
her  pleasure.  It  is  the  change  of  dynasty,  and  not  any  change 
in  the  internal  condition  of  the  country,  that  causes  the  year 
B.C.  37  to  be  taken  as  that  at  which  to  draw  the  line  between 
the  close  of  one  period  and  the  commencement  of  another. 

Fourth  Period. — During  the  fourth  period  Roman  influence 
was,  not  only  practically,  as  during  much  of  the  third  period, 
but  professedly  predominant  over  the  country.  The  Herods, 
who  owed  their  establishment  in  authority  wholly  to  the  Ro- 
mans, had  no  other  means  of  maintaining  themselves  than  by 
preserving  the  favor  of  their  patrons.  Obnoxious,  except  to 
a  small  fraction  of  the  nation,  from  their  Idumaean  descent, 
they  were  hated  still  more  as  the  minions  of  a  foreign  power, 
a  standing  proof  to  the  nation  of  its  own  weakness  and  de- 
graded condition.  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  no  doubt 
some  who  viewed  the  rule  of  the  Herods  as,  in  a  certain  sense, 
a  protection  against  Rome,  a  something  interposed  between 
the  nation  and  its  purely  heathen  oppressors,  saving  the  na- 
tional life  from  extinction,  and  offering  the  best  compromise 
which  circumstances  permitted  between  an  impossible  entire 
independence  and  a  too  probable  absorption  into  the  empire. 
Such  persons  were  willing  to  sec  in  Herod  the  Great,  and  again 
in  Herod  Agjippa,  the  Messiah — the  king  foredoomed  to  save 


them  from  the  yoke  of  the  foreigner,  and  to  obtain  for  them 
the  respect,  if  not  even  the  obedience,  of  the  surrounding 

But  these  feeUngs,  and  the  attachment  to  the  dynasty  which 
grew  out  of  them,  must  have  become  weaker  as  time  went  on. 
The  kingdom  of  the  Herods  gradually  lost  instead  of  gaining 
in  power.  Rome  continually  encroached  more  and  more.  As 
early  as  A.D.  8,  a  portion  of  Palestine,  and  the  most  important 
portion  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews,  was  formally  incorporated  into 
the  Roman  empire;  and  though  the  caprice  of  an  emperor 
afterwards  revoked  this  proceeding,  and  restored  another 
Herod  to  the  throne  of  his  grandfather,  yet  from  the  moment 
when  the  first  Procurator  levied  taxes  in  a  Jewish  province  all 
but  the  willfully  blind  must  have  seen  what  was  impending. 
The  civil  authority  of  the  last  native  prince  over  Judsea  came 
to  an  end  in  A.D.  44 ;  and  the  whole  of  Palestine,  except  a  small 
district  held  as  a  kingdom  by  Agrippa  II.,  was  from  that  time 
absorbed  into  the  empire,  being  appended  to  the  Roman  prov- 
ince of  Syria  and  ruled  wholly  by  Roman  Procurators.  The 
national  life  was  consequently  at  the  last  gasp.  As  far  as 
political  forms  went,  it  was  extinct ;  but  there  remained  enough 
of  vital  energy  in  the  seeming  corpse  for  the  nation  once  more 
to  reassert  itself,  and  to  show  by  the  great  "  War  of  Indepen- 
dence "  that  it  was  not  to  be  finally  crushed  without  a  fearful 
struggle,  the  issue  of  which  at  one  time  appeared  almost 

The  proximate  cause  of  the  great  Jewish  revolt  and  of  the 
"  War  of  Independence  "  was  the  oppression  of  the  Procura- 
tors, and  especially  of  Gessius  Florus.  But,  even  had  the  Ro- 
man governors  ruled  mildly,  it  is  probable  that  a  rebellion 
would  sooner  or  later  have  broken  out.  The  Roman  system 
was  unlike  those  of  the  foreign  powers  to  which  Judaea  had 
in  former  times  submitted.  It  was  intolerant  of  differences, 
and  aimed  everywhere,  not  only  at  absorbing,  but  at  assimi- 
lating the  populations.  The  Jews  could  under  no  circum- 
stances have  allowed  their  nationality  to  be  crushed  other- 
wise than  by  violence.  As  it  was,  the  tyranny  of  Gessius 
Florus  precipitated  a  struggle  which  must  have  come  in  any 
case,  and  made  the  contest  fiercer,  bloodier,  and  more  pro- 


tracted  than  it  might  have  been  otherwise.  From  the  first 
revolt  against  his  authority  to  the  capture  of  the  city  by  Titus 
was  a  period  of  nearly  five  years,  A.D.  66  to  70.  The  fall  of 
the  city  was  followed  by  its  destruction,  partly  as  a  punishment 
for  the  desperation  of  the  resistance,  but  more  as  a  precaution 
to  deprive  the  Jews,  now  felt  to  be  really  formidable,  of  their 
natural  rallying-point  in  any  future  rebellion. 




Photogravure  from  the  original  painting  by  Ernst  Hildebrand. 

Tuilia  was  a  daughter  of  Servius  Tullius,  and  the  wife  of  Aruns,  brother  of 
Tarquin.  She  murdered  her  husband ;  and  Tarquin,  having  killed  his  wife,  mar- 
ried her,  slew  Servius  Tullius,  and  proclaimed  himself  King.  According  to  the 
Roman  legend  Tuilia  rode  to  the  Senate  house  to  greet  her  husband  as  King,  and 
on  her  return  drove  over  the  dead  body  of  her  father,  which  lay  in  the  way.  The 
street  through  which  she  drove  thereafter  bore  the  name  of  Vicus  Sceleratus — 
Abominable  Street. 





The  Italian  Peninsula  is  the  smallest  of  the  three  tracts  which 
project  themselves  from  the  European  continent  southward 
into  the  Mediterranean.  Its  greatest  length  between  the  Alps 
and  Cape  Spartivento  is  720  miles,  and  its  greatest  width  be- 
tween the  Little  St.  Bernard  and  the  hills  north  of  Trieste  is 
330  miles.  The  ordinary  width,  however,  is  only  100  miles; 
and  the  area  is  thus,  even  including  the  littoral  islands,  not 
much  more  than  110,000  square  miles.  The  peninsula  was 
bounded  on  the  north  and  north-west  by  the  Alps,  on  the  east 
by  the  Adriatic,  on  the  south  by  the  Mediterranean,  and  on 
the  west  of  the  Tyrrhenian  Sea  (Mare  Tyrrhenum). 

The  littoral  extent  of  Italy  is,  in  proportion  to  its  area,  very 
considerable,  chiefly  owing  to  the  length  and  narrowness  of  the 
peninsula ;  for  the  main  coasts  are  but  very  slightly  indented. 
Towards  the  west  a  moderate  number  of  shallow  gulfs,  or 
rather  bays,  give  a  certain  variety  to  the  coast-line ;  while  on 
the  east  there  is  but  one  important  headland,  that  of  Gargano ; 
and  but  one  bay  of  any  size,  that  of  Manfredonia.  Southward, 
however,  the  shore  has  two  considerable  indentations  in  what 
would  otherwise  be  but  a  short  line,  viz.,  the  deep  Gulf  of 
Taranto  and  the  shallower  one  of  Squillace.  A  character  gen- 
erally similar  attaches  to  the  coasts  of  the  Italian  islands,  Sar- 



dinia,  Sicily,  and  Corsica;  and  hence,  though  a  nautical  ten- 
dency belongs  naturally  to  the  Italian  people,  the  tendency  is 
not  so  distinct  and  pronounced  as  in  the  neighboring  country 
of  Greece. 

The  Mountains  of  Italy  consist  of  the  two  famous  chains  of 
the  Alps  and  the  Apennines.  The  Alps,  which  bound  Italy 
along  the  whole  of  its  northern  and  a  part  of  its  western  side, 
form  a  lofty  barrier  naturally  isolating  the  region  from  the 
rest  of  Europe.  Nowhere  less  along  the  entire  boundary-line 
than  4000  feet  in  height,  and  varying  from  that  minimum  to  a 
maximum  of  15,000  feet,  they  are  penetrable  by  no  more  than 
ten  or  twelve  difficult  passes,  even  at  the  present  day.  Their 
general  direction  is  from  east  to  west,  or  speaking  more  strict- 
ly, from  N.E.  by  E.  to  S.W.  by  W. ;  but,  at  a  certain  point 
in  their  course,  the  point  in  which  they  culminate,  this  direc- 
tion ceases,  and  they  suddenly  change  their  course  and  run 
nearly  due  north  and  south.  Mont  Blanc  stands  at  the  corner 
thus  formed,  like  a  gigantic  buttress  at  the  angle  of  a  mighty 
building.  The  length  of  the  chain  from  Mont  Blanc  south- 
ward to  the  coast  is  about  150  miles ;  the  length  eastward, 
so  far  as  the  Alps  are  Italian,  is  about  330  miles.  Thus  this 
huge  barrier  guards  Italy  for  a  distance  of  480  miles  with  a 
rampart  which  in  ancient  time  could  scarcely  be  scaled.  From 
the  point  where  the  Alps,  striking  southward  from  Mont  Blanc, 
reach  most  nearly  to  the  sea,  a  secondary  chain  is  thrown  oflf, 
which  runs  at  first  from  west  to  east,  almost  parallel  with  the 
shore,  to  about  the  longitude  of  Cremona  (10°  east  from  Green- 
wich, nearly),  after  which  it  begins  to  trend  south  of  east,  and 
passing  in  this  direction  across  about  three-fourths  of  the 
peninsula,  it  again  turns  still  more  to  the  south,  and  proceeds 
in  a  course  which  is,  as  nearly  as  possible,  due  south-east,  par- 
allel to  the  two  coasts  of  the  peninsula,  along  its  entire  length. 
This  chain  is  properly  the  Apennines.  In  modern  geography 
its  more  western  portion  bears  the  name  of  "  The  Maritime 
Alps  ; "  but  as  the  chain  is  really  continuous  from  a  point  a 
little  north-east  of  Nice  to  the  neighborhood  of  Reggio  (Rhe- 
gium),  a  single  name  should  be  given  to  it  throughout ;  and, 
for  distinction's  sake,  that  name  should  certainly  not  be  "  Alps  " 
but  "  Apennines."    The  Apennines  in  Northern  Italy  consist 


of  but  a  single  chain,  which  throws  off  twisted  spurs  to  the 
right  hand  and  to  the  left ;  but,  when  Central  Italy  is  reached, 
the  character  of  the  range  becomes  more  complicated.  Below 
Lake  Fucinus  the  chain  bifurcates.  While  one  range,  the 
stronger  of  the  two,  pursues  the  old  south-easterly  direction, 
another  of  minor  elevation  branches  off  to  the  south,  and  ap- 
proaching the  south  coast  very  closely  in  the  vicinity  of  Saler- 
num,  curves  round  and  rejoins  the  main  chain  near  Compsa. 
The  range  then  proceeds  in  a  single  line  nearly  to  Venusia, 
when  it  splits  once  more ;  and  while  one  branch  runs  on  nearly 
due  east  to  the  extreme  promontory  of  lapygia,  the  other 
proceeds  almost  due  south  to  Rhegium. 

The  most  marked  feature  of  Italian  geography  is  the  strong 
contrast  in  which  Northern  stands  to  Southern  Italy.  North- 
em  Italy  is  almost  all  plain;  Southern  almost  all  mountain. 
The  conformation  of  the  mountain  ranges  in  the  north  leaves 
between  the  parallel  chains  of  the  Swiss  Alps  and  the  Upper 
Apennines  a  vast  tract — from  100  to  150  miles  in  width,  which 
(speaking  broadly)  may  be  called  a  single  plain — "  the  Plain 
of  the  Po,"  or  "  the  Plain  of  Lombardo-Venetia."  In  Southern 
Italy,  or  the  Peninsula  proper,  plains  of  more  than  a  few  miles 
in  extent  are  rare.  The  Apennines,  with  their  many-twisted 
spurs,  spread  broadly  over  the  land,  and  form  a  continuous 
mountain  region  which  occupies  at  least  one  half  of  the  sur- 
face. But  this  is  not  all.  Where  the  chain  is  sufficiently  nar- 
row to  allow  of  the  interposition,  between  its  base  and  the 
shore,  of  any  tolerably  wide  tract — as  in  Etruria,  in  Latium, 
and  in  Campania — separate  systems  of  hills  and  mountains, 
volcanic  in  character,  exist,  and  prevent  the  occurrence  of  any 
really  extensive  levels.  The  only  exception  to  this  general  rule 
is  in  Apulia,  where  an  extensive  tract  of  plain  is  found  about 
the  Candelaro,  Cervaro,  and  Ofanto  rivers. 

The  Rivers  of  Italy  are  exceedingly  numerous;  but  only 
one  or  two  are  of  any  considerable  size.  The  great  river  is  the 
Po  (Padus),  which,  rising  at  the  foot  of  Monte  Viso,  in  lat.  44** 
40',  long.  7°,  nearly,  drains  almost  the  whole  of  the  great  north- 
em  plain,  receiving  above  a  hundred  tributaries,  and  having 
a  course  which,  counting  only  main  windings,  probably  exceeds 
400  miles.    The  chief  of  its  tributaries  are  the  Duria  (Dora 


Baltea),  the  Ticinus  (Ticino),  the  Addua  (Adda),  the  OUius 
(OgHo),  and  the  Mincius  (Mincio),  from  the  north;  from  the 
south,  the  Tanarus  (Tanaro),  the  Trebia  (Trebbia),  the  Tarus 
(Taro),  the  Secia  (Secchia),  the  Scultenna  (Panaro),  and  the 
Rhenus  (Reno).  The  next  most  important  of  the  Italian  rivers 
is  the  Athesis,  or  Adige,  which,  rising  in  the  Tyrolean  Alps, 
flows  southward  nearly  to  Verona ;  after  which,  curving  round, 
it  runs  parallel  with  the  Po  into  the  Adriatic.  Both  these  rivers 
are  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Peninsula  proper.  Within  those 
limits  the  chief  streams  are  the  Arnus,  Tiber,  Liris,  Vulturnus, 
and  Silarus  on  the  western  side  of  the  Apennines;  the  TEsis, 
Aternus,  Tifernus,  Frento,  Cerbalus,  and  Aufidus  to  the  east 
of  those  mountains. 

Italy  possesses  a  fair  number  of  lakes.  Most  of  these 
lie  towards  the  north,  on  the  skirts  of  the  Alps,  at  the 
point  where  the  mountains  sink  down  into  the  plain.  The 
chief  are  the  Benacus  (Lago  di  Garda),  between  Lombardy 
and  Venetia,  the  Sevinus  (Lago  d'  Iseo),  the  Larius  (Lago  di 
Como),  the  Ceresius  (Lago  di  Lugano),  the  Verbanus  (Lago 
Maggiore),  and  the  Lago  d'  Orta,  which  is  unnoticed  by  the 
ancients.  There  is  one  important  lake,  the  Lacus  Fucinus,  in 
the  Central  Apennine  region.  In  Etruria  are  the  Trasimenus 
(Lago  di  Perugia),  the  Volsiniensis  (Lago  di  Bolsena),  and  the 
Sabatinus  (Lago  di  Bracciano).  Besides  these,  there  are  nu- 
merous lagoons  on  the  sea-coast,  especially  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Venice,  and  several  mountain  tarns  of  small  size,  but 
of  great  beauty. 

The  Italian  Islands  are,  from  their  size,  their  fertility,  and 
their  mineral  treasures,  peculiarly  important.  They  constitute 
nearly  one-fourth  of  the  whole  area  of  the  country.  Sicily  is 
exceedingly  productive  both  in  corn  and  in  wine  of  an  excellent 
quality.  Sardinia  and  Corsica  are  rich  in  minerals.  Even  the 
little  island  of  Elba  (Ilva)  is  valuable  for  its  iron.  Sicily  and 
the  Lipari  isles  yield  abundance  of  sulphur. 

The  only  Natural  Division  of  Italy  is  into  Northern  and 
Southern — the  former  comprising  the  plain  of  the  Po  and  the 
mountains  inclosing  it,  so  far  as  they  are  Italian;  the  latter 
coextensive  with  the  Peninsula  proper.  It  is  usual,  however, 
to  divide  the  peninsula  itself  artificially  into  two  portions  by 


a  line  drawn  across  it  from  the  mouth  of  the  Silarus  to  that  of 
the  Tifemus.  In  this  way  a  triple  division  of  Italy  is  produced : 
and  the  three  parts  are  then  called  Northern,  Central,  and 
Southern.  It  will  be  convenient  to  enumerate  the  countries 
into  which  Italy  was  anciently  parcelled  out  under  the  three 
heads  furnished  by  this  latter  division. 

Northern  Italy  contained,  in  the  most  ancient  times  to  which 
history  goes  back,  the  three  countries  of  Liguria,  Upper 
Etruria,  and  Venetia.  After  a  while,  part  of  Liguria  and  al- 
most the  whole  of  Upper  Etruria  were  occupied  by  Gallic 
immigrants;  and,  the  boundary-lines  being  to  some  extent 
changed,  there  still  remained  in  this  large  and  important  tract 
three  countries  only,  viz.,  Liguria,  Venetia,  and  Gallia  Cisal- 
pina;  the  last-named  having,  as  it  were,  taken  the  place  of 
Upper  Etruria. 

Liguria  was  the  tract  at  the  extreme  west  of  Northern  Italy. 
Before  the  Gallic  invasion  it  probably  reached  to  the  Pennine 
and  Graian  Alps ;  but  in  later  times  it  was  regarded  as  bounded 
on  the  north  by  the  Po,  on  the  west  by  the  Alps  from  Monte 
Viso  (Vesulus)  southward,  on  the  south  by  the  Mediterranean, 
and  on  the  east  by  the  river  Macra.  It  was  a  country  almost 
entirely  mountainous ;  for  spurs  from  the  Alps  and  Apen- 
nines occupy  the  whole  tract  between  the  mountain-ranges 
and  the  river  Po,  as  far  down  as  long.  9°.  Liguria  derived  its 
name  from  its  inhabitants,  the  Ligures  or  Ligyes,  a  race  who 
once  occupied  the  entire  coast  from  below  the  mouth  of  the 
Amo  to  Massilia.  Its  chief  towns  were  Genua  (Genoa),  Nicae 
(Nice),  and  Asta  (Asti). 

Venetia  was  at  the  opposite  side,  or  extreme  east,  of  North 
Italy.  It  is  difficult  to  say  what  were  its  original  or  natural 
limits.  From  the  earliest  times  of  which  we  have  any  knowl- 
edge, the  Veneti  were  always  encroached  upon,  first  by  the 
Etruscans  and  then  by  the  Gauls,  until  a  mere  corner  of  North 
Italy  still  remained  in  their  possession.  This  corner  lay  be- 
tween Histria  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Lesser  Medaucus  upon 
the  other;  southward  it  extended  to  the  Adriatic  Sea,  north- 
ward to  the  flanks  of  the  Alps.  It  was  a  tract  of  country  for  the 
most  part  exceedingly  flat,  well  watered  by  streams  flowing 
from  the  Alps,  and  fertile.    The  chief  city  in  ancient  times  was 


Patavium,  on  the  Lesser  Meduacus ;  but  this  place  was  after- 
wards ecHpsed  by  Aquileia. 

The  Etruscan  state,  which  the  Gauls  conquered,  was  a  con- 
federacy of  twelve  cities,  whose  territory  reached  from  the 
Ticinus  on  the  west  to  the  Adriatic  and  the  mouths  of  the  Po 
upon  the  east.  Among  its  cities  were  Melpum,  Mediolanum 
(Milan),  Mantua,  Verona,  Hatria,  and  Felsina  or  Bononia. 
Northward  it  was  bounded  by  the  Alps,  southward  by  the 
Apennines  and  the  course  of  the  Utis,  or  perhaps  by  that  of 
the  Rubicon.  When  the  Gauls  made  their  conquests  they 
overstepped  these  boundaries,  taking  from  the  Ligurians  all 
their  territory  north  of  the  Padus,  and  perhaps  some  to  the 
south,  about  Placentia  and  Parma,  encroaching  on  the  Veneti 
towards  the  east,  and  southward  advancing  into  Umbria.  Thus 
Gallia  Cisalpina  had  larger  limits  than  had  belonged  to  North 
Etruria.  It  was  bounded  on  the  north  and  west  by  the  Alps ; 
on  the  south  by  Liguria,  the  main  chain  of  the  Apennines,  and 
the  ^sis  river ;  on  the  east  by  the  Adriatic  and  Venetia.  The 
whole  tract,  except  in  some  swampy  districts,  was  richly  fertile. 
While  it  remained  Gallic,  it  was  almost  without  cities.  The 
Gauls  lived,  themselves,  in  open  unwalled  villages,  and  suf- 
fered most  of  the  Etruscan  towns  to  fall  to  decay.  Some,  as 
Melpum,  disappeared.  A  few  maintained  themselves  as  Etrus- 
can, in  a  state  of  semi-independence ;  e.  g.,  Mantua  and  Verona. 
In  Roman  times,  however,  the  country  was  occupied  by  a 
number  of  most  important  cities,  chiefly  Roman  colonies. 
Among  these  were,  in  the  region  south  of  the  Po,  Placentia, 
Parma,  Mutina  (now  Modena),  Bononia  (now  Bologna),  Ra- 
venna, and  Ariminium  (now  Rimini) ;  and  across  the  river  to 
the  north  of  it,  Augusta  Taurinorum  (Turin),  Ticinum  (Pavia), 
Mediolanum  (Milan),  Brixia  (Brescia),  Cremona,  Mantua, 
Verona,  and  Vincentia  (now  Vicenza). 

Central  Italy,  or  the  upper  portion  of  the  Peninsula  proper, 
comprised  six  countries — Etruria,  Latium,  and  Campania 
towards  the  west ;  Umbria,  Picenum,  and  the  Sabine  territory 
(which  had  no  general  name)  towards  the  east.  These  coun- 
tries included  the  three  most  important  in  Italy,  viz.,  Latium, 
Etruria,  and  the  territory  of  the  Sabines. 

Etruria,  or  Tyrrhenia  (as  it  was  called  by  the  Greeks),  was 


the  tract  immediately  south  and  west  of  the  northern  Apen- 
nines, interposed  between  that  chain  and  the  Mediterranean. 
It  was  bounded  on  the  north  by  Liguria  and  GaUia  Cisalpina ; 
on  the  east  by  Umbria  and  the  old  Sabine  country ;  on  the  west 
by  the  Mediterranean  Sea ;  and  on  the  south  by  Latium.  The 
line  of  separation  between  it  and  the  rest  of  the  continent  was 
very  marked,  being  first  the  strong  chain  of  the  Apennines, 
and  then,  almost  from  its  source,  the  river  Tiber.  Etruria  was 
watered  by  two  main  streams,  the  Arnus  (Arno),  and  the  Clanis 
(Chiana),  a  tributary  of  the  Tiber.  It  was  for  the  most  part 
mountainous,  consisting  in  its  northern  and  eastern  portions 
of  strong  spurs  thrown  off  from  the  Apennines,  and  in  its  south- 
em  and  western,  of  a  separate  system  of  rocky  hills,  ramifying 
irregularly,  and  reaching  from  the  valleys  of  the  Arnus  and 
Clanis  very  nearly  to  the  coast.  The  little  level  land  which  it 
contained  was  along  the  courses  of  the  rivers  and  near  the 
sea-shore.  The  soil  was  generally  rich,  but  in  places  marshy. 
The  country  contained  three  important  lakes.  The  original 
Etrurian  state  consisted  of  a  confederacy  of  twelve  cities,  among 
which  were  certainly  Volsinii,  Tarquinii,  Vetulonium,  Perusia, 
and  Qusium ;  and  probably  Volaterrae,  Arretium,  Rusellae, 
Veii,  and  Agylla  or  Caere.  Other  important  towns  were  Pisae 
(Pisa),  and  Faesulae  (Fiesole),  north  of  the  Arnus ;  Populonia 
and  Cosa,  on  the  coast  between  the  Arnus  and  the  Tiber ;  Cor- 
tona  in  the  Clanis  valley;  and  Falerii  near  the  Tiber,  about 
eighteen  miles  north  of  Veii. 

Latium  lay  below  Etruria,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Tiber. 
It  was  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Tiber,  the  Anio,  and  the 
Upper  Liris  rivers;  on  the  west  and  south  by  the  Mediter- 
ranean; on  the  east  by  the  Lower  Liris  and  a  spur  of  the- 
Apennines.  These,  however,  were  not  its  original  limits,  but 
those  whereto  it  ultimately  attained.  Anciently  many  non- 
Latin  tribes  inhabited  portions  of  the  territory.  The  Volsci 
held  the  isolated  range  of  hills  reaching  from  near  Praeneste 
to  the  coast  at  Tarracina  or  Anxur.  The  ^qui  were  in  pos- 
session of  the  Mons  Algidus,  and  of  the  mountain-range  be- 
tween Praeneste  and  the  Anio.  The  Hernici  were  located  in 
the  valley  of  the  Trerus,  a  tributary  of  the  Liris.  On  the  Lower 
Liris  were  established  the  Ausones.  The  nation  of  the  Latins 


formed,  we  are  told,  a  confederacy  of  thirty  cities,  Alba  having 
originally  the  pre-eminency.  Among  the  thirty  the  most  im- 
portant were  the  following: — Tibur,  Gabii,  Prseneste,  Tuscu- 
lum,  Velitrse,  Aricia,  Lanuvium,  Laurentum,  Lavinium,  Ardea, 
Antium,  Circeii,  Anxur  or  Tarracina,  Setia,  Norba,  and  Satri- 
cum.  Latium  was  chiefly  a  low  plain,  but  diversified  towards 
the  north  by  spurs  from  the  Apennines,  in  the  centre  and 
towards  the  south  by  two  important  ranges  of  hills.  One  of 
these,  known  as  "  the  Volscian  range,"  extends  in  a  continuous 
line  from  near  Praeneste  to  Tarracina ;  the  other,  which  is  quite 
separate  and  detached,  rises  out  of  the  plain  between  the  Vols- 
cian range  and  the  Tiber,  and  is  known  as  "  the  Alban  range," 
or  the  "  Mons  Algidus."  Both  are  in  the  western  part  of  the 
country.  The  eastern  is  comparatively  a  flat  region.  Here 
were  Anagnia,  the  old  capital  of  the  Hernici,  Arpinum,  Fregel- 
Ise,  Aquinum,  Interamna  ad  Lirim ;  and,  on  the  coast,  Lantulae, 
Fundi,  Formiae,  Minturnae,  and  Vescia, 

Campania  in  its  general  character  very  much  resembled 
Latium,  but  the  isolated  volcanic  hills  which  here  diversified 
the  plain  were  loftier  and  placed  nearer  the  coast.  To  the 
extreme  south  of  the  country  a  strong  spur  ran  out  from  the 
Apennines  terminating  in  the  promontory  of  Minerva,  the 
southern  protection  of  the  Bay  of  Naples.  Campania  extended 
along  the  coast  fiiom  the  Liris  to  the  Silarus,  and  reached  in- 
land to  the  more  southern  of  the  two  Apennine  ranges,  which, 
separating  a  little  below  Lake  Fucinus,  reunite  at  Compsa. 
The  plain  country  was  all  rich,  especially  that  about  Capua, 
Among  the  principal  Campanian  towns  were  Capua,  the  cap- 
ital, Nola  and  Teanum  in  the  interior,  and  upon  the  coast  Sin- 
uessa,  Cumae,  Puteoli,  Parthenope,  or  Neapolis,  Herculaneum, 
Pompeii,  Surrentum,  Salernum,  and  Picentia. 

Umbria  lay  east  of  Etruria,  from  which  it  was  separated, 
first  by  the  range  of  the  Apennines,  and  then  by  the  river 
Tiber.  It  was  bounded  on  the  north  by  Gallia  Cisalpina ;  on 
the  east  and  south-east  by  Picenum  and  the  Sabine  country ; 
on  the  south-west  and  west  by  Etruria.  Before  the  invasion  of 
the  Gauls  it  reached  as  far  north  as  the  Rubicon,  and  included 
all  the  Adriatic  coast  between  that  stream  and  the  ^sis ;  but 
after  the  coming  of  the  Senones  this  tract  was  lost,  and  Umbria 


was  shut  out  from  the  sea.  The  Umbrian  territory  was  almost 
wholly  mountainous,  consisting,  as  it  did,  chiefly  of  the  main 
chain  of  the  Apennines,  together  with  the  spurs  on  either  side 
of  the  chain,  from  the  source  of  the  Tiber  to  the  junction  with 
the  Tiber  of  the  Nar.  Some  rich  plains,  however,  occurred 
in  the  Tiber  and  Lower  Nar  valleys.  The  chief  towns  of 
Umbria  were  Iguvium,  famous  for  its  inscriptions ;  Sentinum, 
the  scene  of  the  great  battle  with  the  Gauls  and  Samnites; 
Spoletium  (now  Spoleto) ;  Interamna  (now  Terni) ;  and  Nar- 
nia  (Narni),  which,  though  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Nar,  was 
still  reckoned  to  Umbria. 

Picenum  extended  along  the  coast  of  the  Adriatic  from  the 
i^sis  to  the  Matrinus  (Piomba)  river.  It  was  composed  mainly 
of  spurs  from  the  Apennines,  but  contained  along  the  coast 
some  flat  and  fertile  country.  The  chief  towns  were  Ancona, 
on  the  coast,  Firnum  (Femo),  Asculum  Picenum  (Ascoli),  and 
Hadria  (Atri),  in  the  interior. 

The  territory  of  the  Sabine  races,  in  which  Picenum  ought 
perhaps  to  be  included,  was  at  once  the  most  extensive  and 
the  most  advantageously  situated  of  all  the  countries  of  Central 
Italy.  In  length,  from  the  Mons  Fiscellus  (Monte  Rotondo) 
to  the  Mons  Vultur  (Monte  Vulture),  it  exceeded  200  miles; 
while  in  breadth  it  reached  very  nearly  from  sea  to  sea,  bor- 
dering the  Adriatic  from  the  Matrinus  to  the  Tifemus  rivers, 
and  closely  approaching  the  Mediterranean  in  the  vicinity  of 
Salernum.  In  the  north  it  comprised  all  the  valleys  of  the 
Upper  Nar  and  its  tributaries,  together  with  a  portion  of  the 
valley  of  the  Tiber,  the  plain  country  south  and  east  of  Lake 
Fucinus,  and  the  valleys  of  the  Suinus  and  Aternus  rivers. 
Its  central  mass  was  made  up  of  the  valleys  of  the  Sagrus, 
Trinius,  and  Tifernus,  together  with  the  mountain-ranges  be- 
tween them ;  while  southward  it  comprised  the  whole  of  the 
great  Samnite  upland  drained  by  the  Vulturnus,  and  its  tribu- 
taries. The  territory  had  many  distinct  political  divisions. 
The  north-western  tract,  about  the  Nar  and  Tiber,  reaching 
from  the  main  chain  of  the  Apennines  to  the  Anio,  was  the 
country  of  the  old  Sabines  (Sabini),  the  only  race  to  which 
that  name  is  applied  by  the  ancient  writers.  East  and  south- 
east of  this  region,  the  tract  about  Lake  Fucinus,  and  the  val- 


leys  of  the  Suinus  and  Aternus  rivers,  were  in  the  possession 
of  the  League  of  the  Four  Cantons,  the  Marsi,  Marrucini, 
PeHgni,  and  Vestini,  who  probably  were  Sabine  races.  Still 
farther  to  the  east,  the  valleys  of  the  Sagrus  and  Trinius,  and 
the  coast  tract  from  Ortona  to  the  Tifernus,  formed  the  coun- 
try of  the  Frentani.  South  and  south-east  of  this  was  Sam- 
nium,  comprising  the  high  upland,  the  main  chain  of  the 
Apennines,  and  the  eastern  flank  of  that  chain  for  a  certain 
distance.  The  chief  of  the  Sabine  towns  were  Reate  on  the 
Velinus,  a  tributary  of  the  Nar;  Teate  and  Aternum  on  the 
Aternus;  Marrubium  on  Lake  Fucinus;  and  Beneventum 
and  Bovianum  in  Samnium. 

Southern  Italy,  or  the  tract  below  the  Tifernus  and  Silarus 
rivers,  contained  four  countries — on  the  west,  Lucania  and 
Bruttium;  on  the  east,  Apulia  and  Messapia,  or,  as  it  was 
sometimes  called,  lapygia.  The  entire  number  of  distinct  coun- 
tries in  ancient  Italy  was  thus  thirteen. 

Lucania  extended  along  the  west  coast  of  Italy  from  the 
Silarus  to  the  Laiis  river.  Its  boundary  on  the  north  was 
formed  by  the  Silarus,  the  chain  of  the  Apennines  from  Compsa 
to  the  Mons  Vultur,  and  the  course  of  the  Bradanus  (Bran- 
dano).  Eastward,  its  border  was  the  shore  of  the  Tarentine 
Gulf;  southward,  where  it  adjoined  Bruttium,  the  line  of  de- 
marcation ran  from  the  Lower  Laiis  across  the  mountains  to 
the  Crathis,  or  river  of  Thurii.  The  country  was  both  pict- 
uresque and  fertile,  diversified  by  numerous  spurs  from  the 
Apennine  range,  and  watered  by  a  multitude  of  rivers.  It  had 
few  native  cities  of  any  importance ;  but  the  coasts  were  thickly 
occupied  by  Grecian  settlements  of  great  celebrity.  Among 
these  were,  on  the  west  coast,  Posidonia  or  Paestum,  Elea  or 
Velia,  Pyxus  or  Buxentum,  and  Laiis ;  on  the  east,  Metapon- 
tum,  Heracleia,  Pandosia,  Siris,  Sybaris,  and  Thurii. 

Bruttium  adjoined  Lucania  on  the  south,  and  was  a  country 
very  similar  in  character.  Its  chief  native  city  was  Consentia, 
in  the  interior,  near  the  sources  of  the  Crathis  river.  On  the 
western  coast  were  the  Greek  towns  of  Temesa,  Terina,  Hip- 
ponium,  and  Rhegium ;  on  the  eastern  those  of  Croton,  Cau- 
lonia,  and  Locri. 

Apulia  lay  entirely  on  the  eastern  coast,  adjoining  Samnium 


upon  the  west,  and  separated  from  the  country  of  the  Frentani 
by  the  Tifemus  river.  The  range  of  the  Apennines,  extending 
from  the  Mons  Vuhur  eastward  as  far  as  long.  17°  40',  divided 
it  from  lapygia.  ApuHa  differed  from  all  the  other  countries 
of  the  Peninsula  proper  in  being  almost  wholly  a  plain.  Ex- 
cept in  the  north-west  comer  of  the  province,  no  spurs  of  any 
importance  here  quit  the  Apennines,  but  from  their  base  ex- 
tends a  vast  and  rich  level  tract,  from  twenty  to  forty  miles  wide, 
intersected  by  numerous  streams,  and  diversified  towards  its 
more  eastern  portion  by  a  number  of  lakes.  The  tract  is  espe- 
cially adapted  for  the  grazing  of  cattle.  Among  its  rivers  are 
the  Aufidus,  on  the  banks  of  which  Cannae  was  fought,  the  Cer- 
balus,  and  the  river  of  Arpi.  The  only  mountainous  part  of 
Apulia  is  the  north  and  north-west,  where  the  Apennines  send 
down  to  the  coast  two  strongly-marked  spurs,  one  between 
the  Tifernus  and  the  Frento  rivers,  the  other,  east  of  the  Frento, 
a  still  stronger  and  more  important  range,  which  running 
towards  the  north-east  reaches  the  coast,  and  forms  the  well- 
known  rocky  promontory  of  Garganum.  The  chief  cities  of 
Apulia  were  Larinum,  near  the  Tifernus ;  Luceria,  Sipontum, 
and  Arpi,  north  of  the  Cerbalus;  Salapia,  between  the  Cer- 
balus  and  Aufidus ;  and  Canusium,  Cannae,  and  Venusia,  south 
of  that  river.  It  was  usual  to  divide  Apulia  into  two  regions, 
of  which  the  north-western  was  called  Daunia,  the  south-east- 
em  Peucetia. 

Messapia,  or  lapygia,  lay  south  and  east  of  Apulia,  compris- 
ing the  entire  long  promontory  which  has  been  called  the 
"  heel  "  of  Italy,  and  a  triangular  tract  between  the  east  Apen- 
nine  range  and  the  river  Bradanus.  Towards  the  east  it  was 
low  and  flat,  full  of  numerous  small  lakes,  and  without  impor- 
tant rivers;  westward  it  was  diversified  by  numerous  ranges 
of  hills,  spurs  from  the  Apulian  Apennines,  which  sheltered 
it  upon  the  north  and  rendered  it  one  of  the  softest  and  most 
luxurious  of  the  Italian  countries.  The  most  important  of  the 
lapygian  cities  was  Taras,  or  Tarentum,  the  famous  Lacedae- 
monian colony.  Other  Greek  settlements  were  Callipolis  (now 
GallipoH),  and  Hydrus  or  Hydmntum  (now  Otranto).  The 
chief  native  town  was  Brundusium. 

The  geography  of  Italy  is  incomplete  without  a  description 


of  the  principal  islands.  These  were  three  in  number,  Sicily, 
Sardinia,  and  Corsica.  There  were  also  numerous  islets  along 
the  western  and  a  few  off  the  eastern  coast,  which  will  require 
a  very  brief  notice. 

Sicily,  which  is  estimated  to  contain  about  ten  thousand 
square  miles,  is  an  irregular  triangle,  the  sides  of  which  face 
respectively  the  north,  the  east,  and  the  south-west.  None  of 
the  coasts  is  much  indented;  but  of  the  three,  the  northern 
has  the  most  noticeable  bays  and  headlands.  Here  are  the 
gulfs  of  Castel-a-Mare,  Palermo,  Patti,  and  Milazzo ;  the  head- 
lands of  Trapani  (Drepanum),  Capo  St.  Vito,  Capo  di  Gallo, 
Capo  Zaffarana,  Capo  Orlando,  Capo  Calava,  and  Capo  Bianco. 
The  south-western,  and  most  of  the  eastern,  shores  run  in 
smooth  lines ;  but  towards  the  extreme  south-east  of  the  island 
there  is  a  fair  amount  of  indentation.  Good  harbors  are  nu- 
merous. The  most  remarkable  are  those  of  Messana  and  Syra- 
cuse, the  former  protected  by  a  curious  curved  strip  of  land, 
resembling  a  sickle,  whence  the  old  name  of  Zancle ;  the  latter 
rendered  secure  in  all  winds  by  the  headland  of  Plemmyrium 
and  the  natural  breakwater  of  Ortygia.  There  are  also  excel- 
lent ports  at  Lilybaeum  and  Panormus  (Palermo).  The  moun- 
tain system  of  Sicily  consists  of  a  main  chain,  the  continuation 
of  the  Bruttian  Apennines  (Aspromonte),  which  traverses  the 
island  from  east  to  west,  beginning  near  Messina  (Messana) 
and  terminating  at  Cape  Drepanum.  This  main  chain,  known 
in  its  different  parts  by  various  names,  throws  off,  about  mid- 
way in  its  course,  a  strong  spur,  which  strikes  south-east  and 
terminates  in  Cape  Pachynus  (Passaro).  Thus  the  island  is 
divided  by  its  mountain  system  into  three  tracts  of  comparative 
lowland — a  narrow  tract  facing  northward  between  the  main 
chain  and  the  north  coast ;  a  long  and  broad  tract  facing  the 
southwest,  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  western  half  of  the 
main  chain,  and  on  the  east  by  the  spur ;  and  a  broad  but  com- 
paratively short  tract  facing  the  east,  bounded  on  the  west  by 
the  spur,  and  on  the  north  by  the  eastern  half  of  the  main  chain. 
In  none  of  these  lowlands,  however,  is  there  really  much  flat 
country.  Towards  the  north  and  towards  the  south-west,  both 
the  main  chain  and  the  spur  throw  off  numerous  branches, 
which  occupy  almost  the  whole  country  between  the  rivers; 


while  towards  the  east,  where  alone  are  there  any  extensive 
plains,  volcanic  action  has  thrown  up  the  separate  and  inde- 
pendent mountain  of  Etna,  which  occupies  with  its  wide- 
spreading  roots  almost  one-third  of  what  should  naturally  have 
been  lowland.  Thus  Sicily,  excepting  in  the  tract  between 
Etna  and  Syracuse,  where  the  famous  "  Piano  di  Catania  "  ex- 
tends itself,  is  almost  entirely  made  up  of  mountain  and  valley, 
and,  in  a  military  point  of  view,  is  an  exceedingly  strong  and 
difficult  country.  Its  chief  rivers  are  the  Simaethus  on  the  east, 
which  drains  nearly  the  whole  of  the  great  plain ;  the  Himera 
and  Halycus  on  the  south ;  and  the  Hypsa,  near  the  extreme 
south-west  corner.  The  only  important  native  town  was  Enna, 
nearly  in  the  centre  of  the  island;  all  the  other  cities  of  any 
note  were  settlements  of  foreigners;  Eryx  and  Egesta,  or 
Segesta,  of  the  Trojans  (?);  Lilybaeum,  Motya,  Panormus, 
and  Soloeis,  or  Soluntum,  of  the  Carthaginians ;  Himera,  Mes- 
sana,  Tauromenium,  Naxos,  Catana,  Megara  Hyblaea,  Syra- 
cuse, Camarina,  Gela,  Agrigentum,  and  Selinus,  of  the  Greeks. 
Sardinia,  which  modem  surveys  show  to  be  larger  than 
Sicily,  has  an  area  of  probably  about  11,000  square  miles.  It 
is  an  oblong  parallelogram,  the  sides  of  which  may  be  viewed 
roughly  as  facing  the  four  cardinal  points,  though  in  reality 
the  south  side  has  a  slight  inclination  towards  the  east,  and  the 
north  side  a  stronger  one  towards  the  west.  Though  less 
mountainous  than  either  Sicily  or  Corsica,  Sardinia  is  traversed 
by  an  important  chain  which  runs  parallel  with  the  eastern  and 
western  shores,  but  nearer  the  former,  from  Cape  Lungo-Sar- 
do  on  the  north  to  Cape  Carbonara  at  the  extreme  south  of 
the  island.  This  chain  throws  out  numerous  short  branch 
ranges  on  either  side,  which  cover  nearly  the  whole  of  the  east- 
em  half  of  the  island.  The  western  half  has  three  separate 
mountain-clusters  of  its  own.  One,  the  smallest,  is  at  the  ex- 
treme north-west  corner  of  the  island,  between  the  Gulfs  of 
Asinara  and  Alghero ;  another,  three  or  four  times  larger,  fills 
the  south-western  corner,  reaching  from  Cape  Spartivento  to 
the  Gulf  of  Oristano.  Both  these  are,  like  the  main  range,  of 
primary  (granitic)  formation.  The  third  cluster,  which  is  in- 
terposed between  the  two  others,  occupying  the  whole  tract 
extending  northward  from  the  Gulf  of  Oristano  and  the  river 


Tirso  to  the  coast  between  the  Turrilano  and  Coguinas  rivers, 
is  much  the  largest  of  the  three,  and  is  of  comparatively  recent 
volcanic  formation.  These  mountain-clusters,  together  with 
the  main  range,  occupy  by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  island. 
They  still,  however,  leave  room  for  some  important  plains,  as 
especially  that  of  Campidano  on  the  south,  which  stretches 
across  from  the  Gulf  of  Cagliari  to  that  of  Oristano;  that  of 
Ozieri  on  the  north,  on  the  upper  course  of  the  Coguinas ;  and 
that  of  Sassari  in  the  north-west,  which  reaches  across 
the  isthmus  from  Alghero  to  Porto  Torres.  Sardinia  is 
fairly  fertile,  but  has  always  been  noted  for  its  malaria.  Its 
chief  river  was  the  Thyrsus  (Tirso).  The  principal  cities  were 
Caralis  (Cagliari),  on  the  south  coast,  in  the  bay  of  the  same 
name ;  Sulci,  at  the  extreme  south-west  of  the  island,  opposite 
the  Insula  Plumbaria;  Neapolis,  in  the  Gulf  of  Asinara;  and 
Olbia,  towards  the  north-eastern  end  of  the  island.  There  was 
no  city  of  any  importance  in  the  interior. 

Corsica,  situated  directly  to  the  north  of  Sardinia,  was  more 
mountainous  and  rugged  than  either  of  the  other  two  great 
islands.  A  strong  mountain-chain  ran  through  the  island  from 
north  to  south,  culminating  towards  the  centre  in  the  Mons 
Antaeus  (Monte  Rotondo).  Numerous  branch  ranges  inter- 
sected the  country  on  either  side  of  the  main  chain,  rendering 
the  entire  region  one  of  constant  mountain  and  valley.  Streams 
were  numerous ;  but  the  limits  of  the  island  were  too  narrow 
for  them  to  attain  any  considerable  size.  The  chief  town  was 
Alalia  (afterwards  Aleria),  a  colony  of  the  Phocaeans.  Besides 
this,  the  only  places  of  any  importance  were  Mariana,  on  the 
east  coast,  above  Alalia,  Centurimum  (now  Centuri),  on  the 
west  side  of  the  northern  promontory,  Urcinium  on  the  west 
coast  (now  Ajaccio),  and  Talcinum  (now  Corte)  in  the  interior. 

The  lesser  islands  adjacent  to  Italy  were  Ilva  (Elba),  be- 
tween northern  Corsica  and  the  main-land;  Igilium  (Giglio) 
and  Dianium  (Giannuti),  opposite  the  Mons  Argentarius  in 
Etruria ;  Palmaria,  Pontia,  Sinonia,  and  Pandataria,  off  Anxur ; 
Pithecussa  (Ischia),  Prochyta  (Procida),  and  Capreae  (Capri), 
in  the  Bay  of  Naples ;  Strongyle  (Stromboli),  Euonymus  (Pan- 
aria),  Lipara  (Lipari),  Vulcania  (Volcano),  Didyme  (Salina), 
Phoenicussa  (Felicudi),  Ericussa  (Alicudi),  and  Ustica,  off  the 


north  coast  of  Sicily ;  the  JEgztes  Insulae,  off  the  western  point 
of  the  same  island ;  the  Choerades  Insulae,  off  Tarentum ;  and 
Trimetus  (Tremiti)  in  the  Adriatic,  north  of  the  Mons  Gar- 

On  the  geography  of  Italy,  the  most  important  works  are — 

Cluverius,  "  Italia  Antiqua."    Lugd.  Bat.,  1624;  2  vols,   folio. 

Romanelli,  "  Antica  Topografia  istorica  del  Regno  di  Napoli." 
Napoli,  1815;  3  vols.  4to. 

Mannert,  K.,  "  Geographie  der  Griechen  und  Romer  aus  ihren  Schrif- 
ten  dargestellt."    Leipzig,  1801-29;    10  vols.  8vo. 

Swinburne,  H.,  "  Travels  in  the  Two  Sicilies  in  the  Years  1777-80." 
London,  1783-85;   2  vols.   4to. 

Dennis,  G.,  "  Cities  and  Cemeteries  of  the  Etruscans."  London,  1848; 
2  vols.   8vo. 

Abeken,  "  Mittel-Italien  vor  den  Zeiten  Romischer  Herrschaft" 
Stuttgart,  1843;  8vo. 

Cramer,  "  Geographical  and  Historical  Description  of  Ancient  Italy." 
Oxford,  1826;  2  vols.  8vo. 



The  Ancient  Traditional  History  from  the  Earliest  Times  to 
the  Commencement  of  the  Republic,  B.C.  508.* 

Italy  was  inhabited,  at  the  earliest  times  to  which  our  knowl- 
edge carries  us  back,  by  five  principal  races.  These  were  the 
Ligurians,  the  Venetians,  the  Etruscans,  the  Italians  proper, 
and  the  lapygians.  The  Ligurians  and  Venetians  may  have 
been  branches  of  one  stock,  the  lUyrian ;  but  there  is  no  suffi- 

♦  Sources.  Native. — A  few  fragments  of  the  "  Fasti  Triumphales  "  be- 
long to  this  early  period;  but  such  knowledge  of  it  as  we  possess  is 
derived  mainly  from  the  works  of  historians.  Among  these  the  first 
place  must  be  assigned  to  the  fragments  of  the  early  Annalists,  espe- 
cially of  Q.  Fabius  Pictor,  many  of  which  are  preserved  in  Dionysius 
of  Halicarnassus.  The  most  copious  native  writer  on  the  period  is  Livy, 
who  delivers  an  account  of  it  in  his  First  Book.  Other  native  authori- 
ties are  Cicero,  who  has  sketched  the  constitutional  history  of  the  period 
in  his  treatise  "  De  Republica  "  (book  ii.),  and  Florus,  who  has  briefly 
epitomized  it.  The  portion  of  Velleius  Paterculus  which  treated  of  the 
time  is  almost  entirely  lost.    No  lives  of  Nepos  touch  on  it.    Many 


cient  evidence  to  prove  this  connection.  They  were  weak  and 
unimportant  races,  confined  to  narrow  regions  in  the  north, 
and  without  any  influence  on  the  general  history  of  Italy.  Set- 
ting them  aside,  therefore,  for  the  present,  we  may  confine  our 
attention  to  the  three  other  races. 

The  lapygians  were  probably  among  the  earliest  settlers. 
The  heel  of  Italy,  which  stretches  out  towards  Greece,  invites 
colonization  from  that  quarter;  and  it  would  seem  that  at  a 
very  remote  date  a  stream  of  settlers  passed  across  the  narrow 
sea  from  the  Hellenic  to  the  Italic  peninsula,  and  landing  on 
the  lapygian  promontory  spread  themselves  northward  and 
westward  over  the  greater  portion  of  the  foot  of  Italy.  The 
language  of  the  race  in  question  remains  in  numerous  inscrip- 
tions which  have  been  discovered  in  the  Terra  di  Otranto,  and 
shows  them  to  have  been  nearly  connected  with  the  Greeks. 
Their  worship  of  Greek  gods,  and  the  readiness  with  which,  at 
a  later  date,  they  became  actually  Hellenized,  point  in  the  same 
direction.  We  have  reason  to  conclude  that  a  race  kindred  with 
the  Greeks  held  in  the  early  times  the  greater  part  of  Southern 
Italy,  which  was  thus  prepared  for  the  later  more  positively 
Hellenic  settlements.  To  this  stock  appear  to  have  belonged 
the  Messapians,  Peucetians,  GEnotrians,  the  Chaones  or 
Chones,  and  perhaps  the  Daunii. 

The  Italians  proper,  who  in  the  historical  times  occupy  with 
their  numerous  tribes  almost  the  whole  of  Central  Italy,  appear 
to  have  been  later  in-comers  than  the  lapygians,  to  have 
proceeded  from  the  north,  and  to  have  pressed  with  great 
weight  on  the  semi-Greek  population  of  the  southern  regions. 
They  comprised,  apparently,  four  principal  subordinate  races ; 
viz.,  the  Umbrians,  the  Sabines,  the  Oscans,  and  the  Latins. 

allusions  to  it  are  contained,  however,  in  the  works  of  the  poets  and 
grammarians,  as  Ovid  ("  Fasti  "),  Virgil  ("  ^neid,"  book  vi.),  Servius 
("ad.  .(Eneid."),  Festus,  and  others.  Foreign. — The  Greek  writers  are 
fuller  on  the  early  history  than  the  Roman.  The  most  important  of 
them  is  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  in  whose  work  ("  Archasologia  Ro- 
mana;"  ed.  Reiske.  Lipsise,  1774-77;  6  vols.  8vo)  the  ante-regal  and 
regal  periods  occupy  the  first  four  books.  Next  to  Dionysius  may  be 
placed  Plutarch,  whose  Lives  of  Romulus,  Numa,  and  Poplicola  bear 
upon  this  portion  of  the  history.  The  part  of  Diodorus  Siculus  which 
treated  of  the  time  (books  vii.-x.)  is  lost,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
brief  fragments. 


Of  these  the  Umbrians  and  Oscans  were  very  closely  con- 
nected. The  Latins  were  quite  distinct.  The  Sabines  are  sus- 
pected to  have  been  nearly  allied  to  the  Osco-Umbrians. 

The  Tuscans  or  Etruscans,  the  most  powerful  nation  of  the 
north,  differed  in  race  completely  from  all  the  other  inhabi- 
tants of  Italy.  It  appears  to  be,  on  the  whole,  most  probable 
that  they  were  Turanians,  of  a  type  similar  to  that  which  is 
found  in  various  parts  of  Europe — Lapps  and  Finns  in  the 
extreme  north,  Esthonians  on  the  Baltic,  Basques  in  Spain — 
remnants  of  a  primitive  population  that  once,  we  may  suppose, 
overspread  the  whole  of  Europe.  The  original  seat  of  the  race, 
so  far  as  it  is  traceable,  seems  to  have  been  Rhaetia,  or  the 
country  about  the  head-streams  of  the  Rhine,  the  Inn,  and  the 
Adige.  Their  native  name  was  Ras ;  and  this  name,  changed 
by  the  Italians  into  Rhaesi  or  Rhaeti,  was  long  attached  to  the 
mountain  region  from  which  their  hordes  had  issued.  These 
hordes  at  a  very  remote  time  spread  themselves  over  the  plain 
of  the  Po  from  the  Ticinus  to  beyond  the  Adige,  and  formed 
there,  as  we  are  told,  a  confederacy  of  twelve  cities.  After  hav- 
ing flourished  in  this  tract  for  an  indefinite  period,  they  over- 
flowed the  mountain  barrier  to  the  south,  and  occupying  the 
region  between  the  northern  Apennines  and  the  Tiber,  formed 
there  a  second,  quite  separate,  confederacy,  consisting,  like  the 
northern  one,  of  twelve  distinct  states.  Subsequently,  but 
probably  later  than  the  period  now  under  consideration,  they 
passed  the  Tiber  and  established  temporarily  a  dominion  in 
Campania,  where  Capua  and  Nola  were  cities  founded  by  them. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Romans  belonged,  at  any 
rate  predominantly,  to  the  second  of  the  three  races  who  seem 
in  the  early  times  to  have  divided  the  peninsula  among  them — 
the  race  which  has  been  here  termed,  Kar  i^oxv^'  "  Italic." 
They  had,  indeed,  a  tradition  which  connected  them  with  a 
body  of  immigrants  who  were  thought  to  have  come  by  sea 
into  Italy  from  the  distant  city  of  Troy,  at  a  date  which  pre- 
ceded by  nearly  500  years  the  building  of  the  city.  And  this 
tradition  was  brought  out  into  great  prominence  by  writers 
of  the  Imperial  times.  But,  whatever  amount  of  truth  we  may 
suppose  to  be  contained  in  the  "  story  of  ^neas,"  it  is  evident 
that  the  crews  of  a  few  vessels  landing  on  a  thickly-peopled 


coast,  and  belonging  to  a  race  not  much  more  civilized  than 
that  to  which  they  came,  could  make  but  a  very  slight  impres- 
sion on  the  previous  population,  in  which  they  would  be  sure 
to  be  very  soon  swallowed  up  and  absorbed.  The  Trojan  col- 
ony to  Latium  is  therefore,  whether  true  or  false,  a  matter  of 
small  consequence — it  had  no  part  in  determining  the  ethnic 
character  of  the  Roman  people. 

Nor  is  there  much  difficulty  in  deciding  to  which  of  the 
branch  races  included  here  under  the  general  name  of  "  Italic," 
the  Romans  belonged.  Language  is  the  most  certain  indica- 
tion of  race,  and  the  language  which  the  Romans  spoke  was 
Latin.  Their  own  traditions  connected  the  early  city  in  a  spe- 
cial way  with  Lavinium  and  Alba  Longa;  and  these  cities 
were  universally  allowed  to  have  been  two  of  the  thirty  Latin 
towns.  To  whatever  extent  the  Romans  were  a  mixed  people 
— and  that  they  were  so  to  some  extent  is  admitted  by  all — it 
is  impossible  to  doubt  that  they  were  predominantly  and  es- 
sentially— not  Oscans,  not  Sabines,  much  less  Umbrians — but 

It  is,  however,  far  from  easy  to  determine  in  what  exact 
position  the  original  Rome  stood  to  the  Latin  stock.  It  is 
clear  that  she  was  not  a  mere  Latin  town,  not  one  of  the  thirty. 
She  stands  in  the  early  times  of  the  monarchy  quite  outside 
the  confederacy ;  and  a  peculiar  character  belongs  to  her  which 
is  not  simply  and  wholly  Latin.  The  tradition  which  makes 
her  foundation  the  spontaneous  act  of  a  band  of  adventurous 
young  men,  whose  aflfection  for  the  locality  leads  them  to  set 
up  a  new  town,  which  is  also  a  new  state,  on  the  spot  where 
they  have  been  wont  to  pasture  their  flocks,  is  at  variance  with 
the  condition  of  Italy  at  the  time,  which  was  not  a  wilderness, 
with  abundant  waste  land,  whereon  the  first  comer  might  set- 
tle, but  a  thickly-peopled  country,  where  every  inch  of  ground 
had  an  owner,  or  was  disputed  between  neighboring  tribes. 
If  there  be  any  truth  at  all  in  the  account  which  has  come  down 
to  us  of  the  original  settlement,  that  account  must  be  a  poeti- 
cised version  of  a  very  ordinary  occurrence.  The  Latin  towns 
were  in  the  habit  of  extending  or  defending  their  territories  by 
the  establishment  of  colonies.  Nothing  is  more  easily  con- 
ceivable than  that  the  original  Rome  should  have  been  a  col- 


ony  from  Alba  Longa,  planted  in  a  strong  though  unhealthy 
position  at  the  extreme  verge  of  the  territory,  where  it  was 
threatened  by  the  Tuscans  upon  the  west  and  still  more  by  the 
advancing  Sabines  towards  the  north.  Rome  herself  was  after- 
wards accustomed  to  plant  her  colonies  in  exactly  such  posi- 
tions. Among  the  various  conjectures  which  critics  have 
formed  on  the  subject  of  the  origin  of  Rome,  that  which  re- 
gards her  as  a  colony  from  Alba  appears  to  be  the  most  worthy 
of  acceptance. 

But  if  Rome  was  originally  a  mere  Alban  dependency,  it  is 
certain  that  she  did  not  long  continue  such.  The  first  clearly 
marked  fact  in  her  history  is  her  entrance  into  voluntary  union 
with  the  natives  of  an  adjacent  Sabine  settlement,  an  act  which 
implies  independence  and  the  assertion  of  sovereignty.  The 
colony  must  either  previously  have  shaken  off  the  yoke  of  the 
mother-city,  or  else  must,  in  the  very  act  of  uniting  herself 
with  an  alien  people,  have  asserted  autonomy.  From  the  date 
of  the  (TwoiKt,afjU><;,  if  no  earlier,  Rome  was,  it  is  clear,  a  self- 
governing  community.  No  power  exercised  control  over  her. 
She  stood  aloof  from  the  Latin  league,  on  terms  which  were 
at  first  rather  hostile  than  friendly.  Her  position  was  unique 
among  the  states  and  cities  of  the  period.  The  amalgamation 
of  two  bloods,  two  civilizations,  two  kindred,  but  still  somewhat 
different,  religious  systems,  produced  a  peculiar  people — 
a  people  stronger  than  its  neighbors,  possessing  wider  views 
and  sympathies,  and  more  varied  tastes — a  people  better  calcu- 
lated than  its  neighbors  to  form  a  nucleus  round  which  the 
various  tribes  of  the  Italic  stock  might  gather  themselves. 

While  the  history  of  individuals  at  this  remote  period  is 
wholly  wanting — for  such  names  as  Romulus,  Remus,  Celer, 
Titus  Tatius,  and  the  like,  cannot  be  regarded  as  having  any 
thing  more  of  historic  substance  than  their  parallels,  Hellen, 
Dorus,  Ion,  Amyclas,  Hoples,  etc.,  the  heroes  eponytni  of  Greek 
legend — it  is  not  impossible  to  trace  out  the  early  character 
of  the  government,  the  chief  features  of  the  constitution,  the 
principal  divisions  and  subdivisions  of  classes  within  the  com- 
munity, and  the  rights  and  privileges  attaching  to  each.  Tra- 
dition is  a  trustworthy  guide  for  certain  main  features ;  analogy 
and  analysis  may  be  allowed  to  furnish  others;  for  the  laws 


of  the  growth  of  states  are  sufficiently  well  known  and  suffi- 
ciently uniform  to  make  it  possible  in  most  cases,  where  we 
have  before  us  a  full-grown  constitution,  to  trace  it  back  to 
its  foundations,  and  gather  a  fair  knowledge  of  its  history  from 
the  form  and  character  of  its  several  parts. 

The  known  points  of  the  early  constitution  are  the  follow- 
ing:— The  form  of  government  was  monarchical.  A  chief, 
called  "  rex,"  i.  e.,  "  ruler,"  or  "  director,"  stood  at  the  head 
of  the  state,  exercising  a  great,  though  not  an  absolute,  power 
over  the  citizens.  The  monarchy  was  not  hereditary,  but  elec- 
tive. When  the  king  died,  there  was  an  "  interregnum."  The 
direction  of  affairs  was  taken  by  the  Senate  or  Council,  whose 
ten  chief  men  ("  Decem  Primi  ")  exercised  the  royal  authority, 
each  in  his  turn,  for  five  days.  It  belonged  to  the  Senate  to 
elect,  and  to  the  people  to  confirm  the  king.  Under  the  king 
was,  first  of  all,  an  hereditary  nobility  ("  patricii "),  members 
of  certain  noble  families,  not  deriving  their  nobility  from  the 
king,  but  possessing  it  by  immemorial  descent.  These  noble 
families  or  "  houses  "  ("  gentes  ")  were,  prior  to  the  avvoiKta- 
fi6<:,  one  hundred  in  number ;  after  the  avvoiKcafio^f,  two  hun- 
dred. Each  was  represented  by  its  chief  in  the  council  of  the 
king  ("  senatus  ") ;  and  thus  the  senators  were  originally  one 
hundred,  afterwards  two  hundred.  All  the  members  of  a 
"  house  "  had  one  name  ("  nomen  gentilitium  ") ;  all  might 
participate  in  certain  sacred  rites  ("  sacra  gentilitia  ") ;  and 
all  had  certain  rights  of  property  in  common.  All  the  males 
of  full  age  belonging  to  the  nobility  possessed  the  right  of  at- 
tending the  public  Assembly  ("  comitia  "),  where  they  voted  in 
ten  bodies  ("  curiae  "),  each  composed  of  the  members  of  ten 
"  houses."  Each  curia  had  its  chief,  called  "  curio ;  "  and  the 
Assembly  was  presided  over  by  the  chief  of  the  ten  curiones, 
who  was  called  "  Curio  Maximus."  Every  change  of  law  re- 
quired the  consent  of  both  the  Senate  and  the  Assembly.  The 
Senate  had  the  right  of  discussing  and  voting,  but  the  Assembly 
had  the  right  of  voting  only.  The  Assembly  was  also  privi- 
leged to  determine  on  peace  or  war ;  and  if  one  of  its  members 
appealed  to  it  from  the  sentence  of  the  king,  or  of  a  judge, 
it  determined  the  appeal  and  condemned  or  acquitted  at  its 
pleasure.    In  addition  to  the  members  of  the  "  gentes,"  the 


early  Roman  state  contained  two  other  classes.  These  were 
the  Clients  and  the  Slaves.  The  Slaves  resembled  persons  of 
their  class  in  other  communities;  but  the  Clients  were  a  pe- 
culiar institution.  They  were  dependents  upon  the  noble 
"  houses,"  and  personally  free,  but  possessed  of  no  political 
privileges,  and  usually  either  cultivated  the  lands  of  their  "  pa- 
trons," or  carried  on  a  trade  under  their  protection.  They  re- 
sembled to  a  considerable  extent  the  "  retainers  "  of  the  Middle 

Under  this  constitution,  Rome  flourished  for  a  period  which 
is  somewhat  vague  and  indefinite,  without  the  occurrence  of 
any  important  change.  According  to  one  tradition,  a  double 
monarchy  was  tried  for  a  short  time,  in  order  that  the  two  ele- 
ments of  the  state — the  Roman  and  the  Sabine  (or  the  Ramnes 
and  the  Tities) — might  each  furnish  a  ruler  from  their  own 
body.  But  the  experiment  was  not  tried  for  very  long.  In 
lieu  of  it,  we  may  suspect  that  for  a  while  the  principle  of  alter- 
nation was  employed,  the  Romans  and  the  Sabines  each  in  their 
turn  furnishing  a  king  to  the  community. 

The  duplication  of  the  community,  which  was  thus  percep- 
tible through  all  ranks,  affected  also  to  a  considerable  extent 
the  national  religion.  Not  only  was  there  a  duplication  of  the 
chief  religious  officers  in  consequence  of  the  synoecismus,  but 
sometimes  the  duplication  extended  to  the  objects  of  worship, 
the  deities  themselves.  Quirinus,  for  instance,  seems  to  have 
been  the  Sabine  Mars,  worshipped,  like  the  Latin  Mars,  by  his 
own  "  Flamen  "  and  college  of  "  Salii."  Juno  was  perhaps  the 
Sabine  equivalent  of  the  Latin  Diana,  another  form  of  the  same 
name,  but  in  the  popular  belief  a  different  goddess.  In  the 
ranks  of  the  hierarchy  the  duplication  was  more  marked.  It 
can  be  traced  in  the  college  of  the  Pontifices,  in  that  of  the 
Augurs,  in  that  of  the  Vestal  Virgins,  in  the  priesthoods  of 
Mars,  and  (probably)  in  the  priesthood  of  Hercules. 

The  names  which  tradition  assigned  to  the  early  Roman 
monarchs  seem  to  be  fictitious.  Romulus,  Titus  Tatius,  and 
Numa  Pompilius  are  personifications  rather  than  personages. 
We  first  touch  on  personal  history  in  the  Roman  records  when 
we  come  to  the  name  of  Tullus  Hostilius,  the  fourth,  or,  omit- 
ting Tatius,  the  third  traditional  king.    There  is  every  reason 


to  believe  that  this  monarch  actually  lived  and  reigned;  his 
name  was  the  first  that  was  handed  down  to  posterity,  owing 
to  the  fact  that  he  was  the  first  king  who  effected  an  important 
conquest,  and  raised  Rome  from  a  humble  position  to  one  of 
dignity  and  eminence.  It  is  the  great  glory  of  Tullus  that  he 
conquered  Alba  Longa,  the  chief  of  the  Latin  cities,  the  mother- 
city  of  Rome  itself.  His  conquest  probably  doubled,  or  even 
tripled,  the  Roman  territory;  it  prepared  the  way  for  that 
hegemony  of  Rome  over  all  Latium  to  which  she  owed  her 
subsequent  greatness ;  and  it  largely  increased  the  population 
of  Rome,  and  the  military  strength  of  the  nation.  For  Tullus 
was  not  content  with  a  simple  conquest.  Following  up  the 
principle  of  synoecismus,  which  had  already  been  found  to  an- 
swer, he  destroyed  Alba,  except  its  temples,  and  transferred 
the  inhabitants  to  his  own  capital.  He  thus  greatly  strength- 
ened the  Latin  element  in  the  Roman  state,  and  made  the  Sa- 
bines  a  mere  modifying  influence  in  a  community  essentially 

The  next  Roman  king  whose  name  has  descended  to  us  is 
Ancus  Martins,  who  is  said  to  have  belonged  to  the  Sabines 
or  Titles.  This  monarch  appears  to  have  been  regarded  by  the 
later  Romans  as  the  founder  of  the  Plebeian  order.  He  pur- 
sued the  policy  of  Tullus  both  in  making  war  on  neighboring 
Latin  towns,  and  in  using  his  victories  for  the  aggrandizement 
of  his  capital  by  transferring  to  Rome  the  populations  of 
the  conquered  states.  A  portion  of  the  new  settlers  undoubt- 
edly became  Clients;  but  the  richer  and  more  independent 
would  decline  to  take  up  this  relationship,  and  would  be  con- 
tent with  the  protection  of  the  king.  Hence  would  come  a 
sudden  augmentation  of  that  free  commonalty,  which  must 
always  grow  up — out  of  various  elements — in  all  states  which 
commence,  like  Rome,  with  a  privileged  class  of  nobles,  and 
a  wholly  unprivileged  class  of  retainers  or  dependents. 

The  time  at  which  it  becomes  necessary,  or  expedient,  in  such 
a  community  as  the  Roman,  to  recognize  the  existence  of  the 
commonalty  in  a  formal  way,  by  the  grant  of  political  or 
municipal  rights,  varies  with  circumstances  within  very  wide 
limits.  At  Rome  the  recognition  took  place  early,  matters 
coming  rapidly  to  a  head  in  consequence  of  the  quick  growth 


of  the  territory,  and  especially  of  the  practice,  which  the  kings 
pursued,  of  removing  large  masses  of  the  conquered  popula- 
tions to  their  capital.  If,  as  we  are  told,  Ancus  gave  up  the 
entire  Aventine  Hill,  previously  uninhabited,  to  his  new  set- 
tlers, thus  assigning  to  their  exclusive  occupation  a  distinct 
quarter  of  the  capital,  municipal  institutions  must  have  been 
at  the  same  time  granted,  for  a  whole  quarter  of  a  town  cannot 
be  surrendered  to  anarchy.  The  "  Plebs  "  must  at  once  have 
had  "  aediles,"  if  not  "  tribunes ;  "  and  a  machinery  must  have 
been  established  for  their  election,  since  nomination  by  the 
monarch  is  not  to  be  thought  of.  But  of  the  details  of  An- 
cus's  regulations,  whatever  they  were,  we  have  no  knowledge, 
the  later  arrangements  of  Servius  having  not  only  superseded 
but  obliterated  them. 

Among  the  other  acts  assigned  to  Ancus  Martins,  the  most 
important  are,  the  extension  of  the  Roman  territory  to  the 
sea,  and  the  establishment  of  the  port  of  Ostia ;  the  construc- 
tion of  salt-pans  {salincB)  in  its  neighborhood ;  the  erection  of 
the  "  pons  sublicius,"  or  "  bridge  of  piles,"  across  the  Tiber, 
and  the  occupation  of  the  Janiculan  Hill  by  a  strong  fort,  or 
tcte  du  pont;  the  draining  of  some  of  the  low  land  about  the 
Seven  Hills  by  the  "  Fossa  Quiritium,"  and  the  construction 
of  the  first  prison.  It  would  seem  that  civilization  was  advanc- 
ing with  both  its  advantages  and  its  drawbacks — trade,  manu- 
factures, and  engineering  skill  on  the  one  hand ;  on  the  other, 
crime  and  its  repression. 

The  next  known  king  of  Rome  is  L.  Tarquinius  Priscus. 
According  to  the  tradition,  he  was  a  refugee  from  the  Etruscan 
town  of  Tarquinii ;  according  to  the  evidence  furnished  by  his 
name  and  by  his  acts,  he  was  a  Latin,  probably  belonging  to 
one  of  the  noble  "  houses  "  from  Alba.  Two  important  consti- 
tutional changes  are  attributed  to  him.  He  raised  the  ideal 
number  of  the  Senate  from  two  hundred  to  three  hundred,  by 
adding  to  it  the  representatives  of  the  "  Gentes  Minores,"  or 
"  Younger  Houses  " — who  can  scarcely  be  different  from  the 
"  houses  "  adopted  into  the  Patrician  body  from  among  the 
nobles  of  Alba.  If  he  were  himself  a  member  of  one  of  these 
"  houses,"  his  act  would,  it  is  clear,  have  been  thoroughly 
natural.    He  "  doubled  the  equestrian  centuries,"  or,  in  other 



words,  the  actual  number  of  the  Patrician  "  houses."  The 
"  houses  "  had,  apparently,  so  dwindled,  that  instead  of  the 
ideal  number  of  three  hundred,  the  actual  number  was  but  one 
hundred  and  fifty,  or  thereabouts.  Tarquin  proposed  to  add 
one  hundred  and  fifty  new  "  houses  "  from  among  the  nobles 
who  had  settled  at  Rome  after  the  addition  of  the  Albans ;  these 
he  proposed  to  add  in  three  new  tribes,  which  were  to  stand 
side  by  side  with  the  three  old  tribes  of  the  Ramnes,  Titles,  and 
Luceres.  Opposed  by  the  Patricians,  who  put  forward  the 
augur,  Attus  Navius,  as  objector,  he  yielded  so  far  as  to  create 
no  new  tribes ;  but  still  he  added  the  new  "  houses  "  in  three 
new  half-tribes,  attaching  them  to  the  old  Ramnes,  Titles,  and 
Luceres,  but  on  terms  of  slight  inferiority. 

The  wars  of  Tarquinius  Priscus  were  also  of  importance. 
He  repulsed  a  fierce  attack  of  the  Sabines,  who  had  crossed 
the  Anio  and  threatened  Rome  itself.  He  then  attacked  the 
Latin  towns  on  the  Upper  Tiber  and  in  the  angle  between  the 
Tiber  and  the  Anio,  and  reduced  all  of  them  except  Momen- 
tum. Antemnae,  Crustumerium,  Ficulea  or  Ficulnea,  Medul- 
lia,  Caenina,  Corniculum,  and  Cameria  were  among  his  con- 
quests. After  this,  towards  the  close  of  his  reign,  he  engaged 
in  a  war,  on  the  other  side  of  the  Tiber,  with  the  Etruscans, 
and  gained  important  successes. 

Tarquinius  Priscus  was  distinguished  among  the  kings  of 
Rome  for  the  number  and  the  character  of  his  great  works. 
To  him  is  ascribed  by  the  best  authorities  the  Cloaca  Maxima, 
the  most  remarkable  monument  now  existing  of  the  regal 
period,  a  construction  of  the  grandest  and  most  massive  de- 
scription. Connected  with  the  Cloaca,  and  undoubtedly  the 
work  of  the  same  builder,  was  a  strong  and  solid  quay  along 
the  left  bank  of  the  Tiber,  which  checked  the  natural  inclina- 
tion of  the  river  to  flow  off  on  that  side  and  to  inundate  the 
low  lands  about  the  Palatine  and  Capitoline  Hills.  Tarquin 
further  constructed  for  the  entertainment  of  the  people  a  "  Cir- 
cus," or  race-course,  known  as  the  "  Circus  Maximus ; "  and 
he  also  designed  and  commenced  the  great  Temple  of  Jove, 
on  the  Capitoline  Hill,  which  was  completed  by  the  last  mon- 

Tarquinius  Priscus  appears  to  have  been  succeeded  in  the 


kingdom  by  Servius  Tullius.  According  to  the  account  which 
has  most  verisimiHtude,  Servius  was  an  Etruscan,  one  of  a  body 
of  mercenaries  whom  Tarquin  had  employed  and  had  settled 
in  his  capital.  He  took  advantage  of  his  position  about  the 
monarch's  person  to  conceal  his  death  for  a  time,  and  act  in 
his  name;  after  which  he  boldly  threw  off  the  mask,  and 
openly  usurped  the  throne.  Having  gained  considerable  suc- 
cesses against  the  Etruscans,  he  felt  himself  strong  enough 
to  devise  and  carry  through  a  complete  change  of  the  consti- 
tution. Hitherto,  the  whole  political  power,  except  that  wield- 
ed by  the  king,  had  been  engrossed  by  the  noble  "  Houses." 
Servius  determined  to  admit  all  ranks  of  freemen  to  the  fran- 
chise. Taking  the  existing  arrangements  of  the  army  as  a 
groundwork,  he  constructed  a  new  Assembly  (comitia  cen~ 
turiata),  in  which  all  free  Romans  found  a  place.  Dividing 
the  citizens  into  "  classes  "  according  to  the  amount  of  their 
property,  he  then  subdivided  the  "  classes  "  into  a  larger  or 
smaller  number  of  "  centuries  "  according  to  the  aggregate 
of  the  property  possessed  by  the  "  class ;  "  and  to  each  century, 
whatever  the  number  of  the  persons  composing  it,  he  gave 
a  single  vote.  The  result  was  that  a  decidedly  preponderating 
power  was  given  to  the  richer  classes;  but  if  they  differed 
among  themselves,  the  poorer  classes  came  in  and  decided  the 
point  in  dispute. 

Another  important  institution  ascribed  by  good  authority  to 
the  reign  of  Servius  is  that  of  the  local  tribes.  Hitherto  the 
only  "  tribes  "  in  Rome  had  been  those  of  the  Patrician  order 
— the  Ramnes,  Titles,  and  Luceres — ^which  were  hereditary, 
and  had  no  connection  with  localities.  Servius  divided  the 
city  into  four,  and  the  territory  probably  into  twenty-six  dis- 
tricts, and  formed  the  land-owners  within  every  such  district 
into  a  tribe.  Each  tribe  had  the  right  of  meeting  and  appoint- 
ing its  own  "  tribunus,"  its  "  aedilis,"  and  probably  its  "  ju- 
dex "  or  "  judices."  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  whole  body 
of  the  tribes  had  at  first  the  right  of  meeting  together  in  one 
place ;  but  ultimately  the  right  was  asserted  and  exercised,  the 
meeting-place  for  the  whole  body  being  the  forum  at  Rome, 
Here  were  held  the  "  comitia  tributa,"  which  were  not,  per- 
haps, exclusively  Plebeian,  but  which  came  to  be  so  regarded 



from  the  great  preponderance  of  the  Plebeians  in  the  class  of 
land-owners.  The  original  object  of  Servius  in  creating  this 
organization  was  perhaps,  as  much  as  anything,  the  assess- 
ment and  collection  of  the  property-tax  (tributuni),  which  the 
tribunes  had  to  levy,  collect,  and  pay  into  the  treasury.  He 
may  also,  however,  have  aimed  at  contenting  the  mass  of  the 
Plebeians,  by  intrusting  them  to  a  considerable  extent  with  the 
power  of  self-government. 

Servius  is  also  said  to  have  made  an  allotment  of  land  out  of 
the  public  domain  to  needy  Plebeians — an  act  which  greatly 
exasperated  the  Patricians,  who  had  hitherto  enjoyed  all  the 
advantage  to  be  derived  from  such  land  by  means  of  their 
right  of  occupation  (passessio).  The  land  allotted  appears  to 
have  lain  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Tiber,  consisting  of  tracts 
which  had  been  ceded  by  the  Etruscans  after  their  defeat. 

According  to  some  authors,  it  was  likewise  this  king  who 
raised  Rome  externally  into  a  new  and  most  important  posi- 
tion, getting  her  to  be  acknowledged  as  actual  head  of  the 
entire  Latin  confederacy,  or  at  any  rate  of  all  but  few  recal- 
citrant towns,  such  as  Gabii.  This  position  was  undoubtedly 
held  by  Rome  at  the  close  of  the  monarchy ;  and  it  may  have 
been  first  assumed  in  the  reign  of  Servius.  The  position  was 
not  exactly  that  which  had  been  occupied  by  Alba.  Alba  had 
been  one  of  the  thirty  cities,  exercising  a  presidency  over  her 
sister  states,  which  gave  her  a  superiority  of  rank  and  dignity, 
but  no  real  control  over  the  federation.  Rome  was  never  one 
of  the  Latin  cities.  Her  position  was  that  of  a  "  separate  state, 
confronting  the  league,"  equal  to  it,  or  even  superior  to  it  in 
power,  and  when  accepted  as  a  close  ally,  necessarily  exercising 
a  protectorate.  By  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  equality  between 
Rome  and  Latium  was  jealously  insisted  upon;  but,  practi- 
cally, Rome  was  paramount,  and  directed  the  policy  of  the 
league  at  her  pleasure. 

An  extension  of  the  city  of  Rome  accompanied  this  advance 
in  her  territorial  influence  and  in  her  dignity.  The  original 
"  Roma  quadrata  "  was  confined  to  a  single  hill,  the  Palatine, 
of  which  perhaps  it  occupied  only  the  north-western  half.  From 
this  centre  the  town  spread  to  the  neighboring  heights,  the 
Esquiline  on  the  north-east,  and  the  Ccelian  on  the  south-east, 


whereon  suburbs  g^ew  up,  perched  upon  eminences,  which 
together  with  the  Palatine  were  seven  in  number,  and  consti- 
tuted the  primitive  "  Septimontium."  The  Rome  which  had 
these  Hmits  was  confronted  by  a  separate  settlement,  probably 
Sabine,  on  the  hills  ("  coUes  ")  directly  to  the  north,  the  Capi- 
toline,  Quirinal,  and  Viminal.  But  after  a  while  the  two  com- 
munities coalesced ;  and  the  Rome  of  Tullus  probably  included 
the  houses  both  of  the  "  Montani  "  and  the  "  CoUini,"  or  those 
of  the  "  Mount-men  "  and  the  "  Hill-men."  Ancus  added  a 
settlement  on  the  Aventine,  so  completing  the  later  "  Septi- 
montium." It  remained,  however,  for  Servius  to  inclose  the 
various  eminences,  and  a  considerable  space  between  and  be- 
yond them,  within  a  single  continuous  line  of  wall.  It  is  sig- 
nificative of  the  greatness  of  the  Roman  state  at  this  time,  that 
the  "  walls  of  Servius  "  sufficed  for  the  city  down  to  the  time 
of  Aurelian. 

It  is  said  that  Servius,  towards  the  close  of  a  long  reign, 
began  to  fear  for  the  stability  of  his  institutions,  and  planned 
measures  which  would,  he  hoped,  secure  their  continuance. 
He  intended  to  abdicate,  before  doing  so  presiding  at  the  elec- 
tion of  two  magistrates  by  the  free  votes  of  the  people  assembled 
in  their  centuries  (comitia  centuriata),  who  should  be  under- 
stood to  be  appointed  to  their  ofhce,  not  for  life,  but  only 
for  a  single  year.  It  should  be  their  business,  before  the  end 
of  the  year,  to  hold  an  assembly  for  the  election  of  their  suc- 
cessors; and  thus  the  state  would  have  passed,  without  vio- 
lence or  revolution,  under  the  government  of  popular  annual 
magistrates.  The  office  of  chief  magistrate  was,  it  is  probable, 
to  be  open  to  both  orders.  But  the  members  of  the  "  houses," 
disgusted  at  this  prospect,  frustrated  the  monarch's  plans  by 
anticipating  them.  Before  Servius  could  effect  the  changes 
which  he  had  designed,  they  broke  out  in  open  revolt,  mur- 
dered the  aged  monarch  in  the  Senate-house,  and  placed  a 
Tarquin,  the  son  of  the  former  king  of  the  same  name,  on  the 

L.  Tarquinius  Superbus,  the  last  king  of  Rome,  having 
gained  his  crown  by  the  sole  favor  of  the  Patricians,  acted 
no  doubt  in  some  respects  oppressively  towards  the  other 
order.     He  set  aside  at  once  the  whole  constitution  of  Ser- 



vius,  and  restored  that  which  had  existed  under  the  earlier 
kings.  But  it  may  be  questioned  whether  his  oppression  of 
the  commonalty  ever  proceeded  farther  than  this.  Some  writ- 
ers represent  him  as  grinding  down  the  people  by  task-work 
of  a  grievous  and  distasteful  kind,  and  then,  when  they  mur- 
mured, banishing  them  from  Rome  to  distant  colonies.  But 
the  works  which  seem  to  be  rightfully  assigned  to  the  second 
Tarquin  are  not  of  such  a  character  as  to  imply  servile  or 
grinding  labor.  Their  object  was  most  probably  the  con- 
tentation  of  the  poorer  classes,  who  obtained  by  means  of  them 
constant  employment  at  good  wages.  And  the  planting  of 
colonies  was  always  a  popular  measure,  involving,  as  it  did  of 
necessity,  an  allotment  of  fresh  lands  to  needy  persons.  Again, 
the  "  cloacae  "  of  Superbus,  and  his  construction  of  perma- 
nent stone  seats  in  the  Circus  Maximus,  were  for  the  advantage 
of  the  lower  classes  of  the  citizens. 

The  real  "  tyranny  "  of  Superbus  was  over  the  Patricians. 
It  cannot  have  commenced  very  early  in  his  reign.  When 
however,  he  felt  himself  securely  settled  upon  the  throne,  when 
he  had  made  himself  fairly  popular  with  the  bulk  of  the  com- 
munity, when,  by  the  vigor  of  his  external  administration,  he 
had  acquired  a  reputation,  and  perhaps  an  amount  of  military 
strength  which  made  him  careless  of  offending  the  "  houses," 
he  ceased  to  respect  the  rights  of  the  privileged  class,  and,  dis- 
pensing with  their  assistance  in  the  government,  took  the  com- 
plete direction  of  affairs  into  his  own  hands.  Perhaps  this  was 
not  much  more  than  earlier  monarchs  had  done,  when  they  felt 
themselves  fairly  established.  But  the  spirit  of  the  nobles  was 
higher  than  it  had  formerly  been.  They  had  recently  slain  one 
king  and  set  up  another.  They  viewed  Tarquin  as  their  creat- 
ure, and  were  indignant  that  he  should  turn  against  them. 
Still,  had  the  tyranny  of  the  monarch  been  merely  political; 
had  their  persons  and  the  honor  of  their  families  remained 
secure,  it  is  quite  possible  that  no  outbreak  would  have  oc- 
curred. But  Tarquin,  suspicious  of  their  intentions,  com- 
menced a  series  of  prosecutions.  He  had  charges  brought 
against  the  most  powerful  Patricians,  and  took  cognizance  of 
them  himself.  Disallowing  the  right  of  appeal,  he  punished 
numbers  by  death  or  exile.    Finally,  the  outrage  upon  a  noble 


Patrician  matron  woke  the  smouldering  discontent  into  a 
flame.  Rebellion  broke  out ;  and,  the  monarch  having  sought 
safety  in  flight,  the  Patrician  order,  with  the  tacit  acquiescence 
of  the  Plebeians,  revolutionized  the  government. 

The  vigor  of  Tarquin's  administration  to  the  last  is  indicated 
by  the  "  Treaty  with  Carthage,"  which  he  must  have  been 
negotiating  at  the  time  of  his  dethronement.  The  story  of 
his  dealings  with  Turnus  Herdonius  seems  to  indicate  that  he 
held  a  position  of  more  authority  with  respect  to  the  Latin 
league  than  had  been  occupied  by  Servius.  And  the  terms 
used  with  respect  to  the  Latins  in  the  treaty  above  mentioned 
confirm  this  view.  The  conquest  of  Gabii  in  his  reign  is  prob- 
ably a  fact,  though  the  circumstances  of  the  conquest  may  be 

The  great  works  of  Tarquin  were  the  Capitoline  Temple,  the 
branch  cloacce  which  drained  into  the  Cloaca  Maxima,  the  seats 
in  the  Circus  Maximus,  and  perhaps  the  Cyclopian  wall  still 
existing  at  Signia. 

The  chronology  of  the  kingly  period  at  Rome  is  extremely 
uncertain.  Traditionally  the  period  was  reckoned  at  either 
240  or  244  years.  To  Romulus  were  assigned  37  years;  to 
Numa,  39  (or  43) ;  to  Tullus,  32 ;  to  Ancus,  24 ;  to  Tarquin  I., 
38;  to  Servius,  44;  to  Tarquin  IL,  25;  and  an  "interreg- 
num "  of  a  year  was  counted  between  Romulus  and  Numa. 
It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  average  duration  of  the  reigns 
(35  years  nearly)  is  improbably  long;  and  that  the  numbers 
bear  in  many  points  the  appearance  of  artificial  manipulation. 
On  the  earlier  numbers  in  the  list,  and  therefore  upon  the  total, 
no  dependence  at  all  can  be  placed ;  for  neither  Romulus  nor 
Numa  can  be  regarded  as  real  personages.  There  is  reason 
to  believe  that  the  "  regifugium  "  took  place  in  or  about  the 
year  B.C.  508.  Perhaps  we  may  accept  the  traditions  with  re- 
spect to  the  later  kings  so  far  as  to  believe  that  the  reigns  of 
the  last  three  monarchs  covered  the  space  of  about  a  century, 
and  those  of  the  two  preceding  them  the  space  of  about  half 
a  century.  The  time  that  the  monarchy  had  lasted  before  Tul- 
lus was  probably  unknown  to  the  Romans  at  the  period  when 
history  first  began  to  be  written. 



From  the  Foundation  of  the  Republic  to  the  Commencement 
of  the  Samnite  Wars,  B.C.  508  to  340.* 

The  interest  of  the  Roman  history  during  the  whole  of  this 
period  belongs  mainly  to  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Republic, 
the  struggle  between  the  orders,  the  growth  of  the  constitution 
and  of  the  laws ;  secondarily  only,  and  by  comparison,  slightly, 
to  the  external  affairs,  wars,  treaties,  alliances,  and  conquests. 
With  the  three  exceptions  of  the  first  Latin  War,  the  Veientine 
contest,  and  the  great  attack  of  Gauls,  the  wars  are  unevent- 
ful and  unimportant.  The  progress  made  is  slight.  It  may 
be  questioned  whether  at  the  close  of  the  period  Terminus  has 
advanced  in  any  direction  beyond  the  point  which  it  had 
reached  under  the  kings.  The  relations  of  Rome  to  Latium 
are  certainly  less  close  and  less  to  the  advantage  of  Rome  at 
the  close  of  the  period  than  at  its  commencement ;  and  thus 
far,  the  power  of  the  Roman  state  is  diminished  rather  than 

The  internal  changes  during  the  period  are,  on  the  contrary, 
of  the  highest  interest  and  importance.  They  include  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  Plebeian  Tribunate,  the  Decemviral  consti- 
tution and  legislation,  the  institution  of  the  Censorship,  the 
experiments  of  the  First  and  Second  Military  Tribunates,  the 
re-establishment  of  the  Consulship  with  the  proviso  that  one 
consul  should  be  a  Plebeian,  the  infringement  of  the  proviso, 
and  the  whole  series  of  the  early  agrarian  enactments  and  dis- 
turbances. There  is  no  portion  of  the  constitutional  history 
of  any  ancient  state  which  has  a  deeper  interest  than  this— • 

*  Sources.  The  most  copious  authorities  are,  as  before,  Livy  (books 
ii.-vii.),  and  Dionysius  (books  v.-xi.  and  fragments  of  books  xii.-xx.); 
to  which  may  be  added  Phitarch,  in  his  lives  of  Poplicola,  Coriolanus, 
and  Camillus;  Diodorus  Siculus  (books  xi.-xvi.);  and  the  fragments 
of  Appian,  and  Dio  Cassius.  Occasional  notices  of  the  period,  mostly 
of  great  value,  are  also  found  in  Polybius.  For  the  chronology,  the 
best  authority  is  the  important  monument  dug  up  on  the  site  of  the 
Forum,  and  generally  known  as  the  Fasti  Capitolini,  which,  so  far  as 
it  goes,  is  invaluable. 



none  from  which  lessons  of  greater  value  can  be  learnt.  A 
certain  amount  of  obscurity  rests,  indeed,  upon  many  points, 
on  which  we  should  be  glad  to  have  clearer  and  more  certain 
knowledge;  but,  despite  this  drawback,  the  history  is  in  the 
highest  degree  instructive,  and  will  well  reward  the  study  of 
all  those  who  love  both  order  and  freedom. 

The  constitution  established  on  the  expulsion  of  Tarquin 
was,  in  part,  the  actualization  of  the  ideal  of  Servius,  in  part 
an  enlargement  of  that  ideal,  conceived  in  the  same  spirit. 
Servius  had  designed  to  intrust  the  government  of  the  state 
to  two  annual  magistrates  elected  by  the  free  voice  of  the  cen- 
turies, and  had  made  the  centuries,  in  which  all  freemen  were 
enrolled,  the  recognized  Assembly  of  the  Roman  people.  He 
had  given  the  non-burghers  generally  the  rights  of  municipal 
self-government ;  of  the  election  of  their  own  "  tribunes," 
"  aediles,"  and  "  judges ;  "  and  of  the  assessment  and  collec- 
tion of  their  own  taxes.  But  this,  so  far  as  appears,  was  all. 
The  leaders  of  the  revolution  of  B.C.  508  went  farther.  They 
restored  the  constitution  of  Servius,  and  they  added  to  it. 
Two  "  praetors,"  or  "  consuls,"  were  elected  by  the  free  voice 
of  the  centuries,  according  to  a  form  of  proceedings  which 
Servius  had  left  behind  him  in  writing;  and  one  of  the  first 
pair  of  consuls  was  a  non-burgher  or  Plebeian.  The  Senate, 
which  had  dwindled  under  the  later  kings,  partly  from  natural 
causes,  partly  by  the  deliberate  policy  of  the  tyrant,  was  com- 
pleted to  its  ideal  number  of  300,  by  the  addition  of  164  life- 
members  ("  conscripti "),  chosen  from  the  richest  of  the 
"  equites,"  of  whom  a  considerable  number  were  Plebeians. 
The  right  of  appeal,  suspended  under  the  last  king,  was  re- 
vived, and  was  so  enlarged  as  to  include  all  freemen.  Thus, 
at  the  outset,  the  new  constitution  wore  the  appearance,  at 
any  rate,  of  equality.  No  sharp  line  of  demarcation  was  drawn 
between  the  two  orders  in  respect  of  personal  freedom,  or  ad- 
missibility to  political  privilege ;  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that,  if  the  spirit  which  animated  the  Patrician  body  in  B.C. 
508  had  continued  to  prevail,  contentions  and  struggles  be- 
tween the  two  orders  would  never  have  arisen. 

But  this  fair  prospect  was  soon  clouded  over.  The  Patri- 
cians had  been  induced  to  make  the  concessions  above  enu- 


merated  to  the  other  Order,  not  from  any  sense  of  justice,  but 
through  fear  of  Tarquin  and  his  partisans,  who  were  laboring 
to  bring  about  a  restoration.  Of  this  there  was  for  a  time  con- 
siderable danger.  There  was  a  royalist  party  among  the  Patri- 
cians themselves ;  and  both  the  Etruscans  and  the  Latins  were 
inclined  to  espouse  the  quarrel  of  the  deposed  king.  When, 
however,  this  peril  was  past,  when  the  chiefs  of  the  royalist 
faction  were  banished  or  executed,  when  the  Etruscans  had 
met  a  resistance  which  they  had  not  counted  on,  and  the  Latins 
had  sustained  the  complete  defeat  of  the  Lake  Regillus,  the 
policy  of  the  Patricians  changed.  No  Plebeian  was  allowed 
to  enjoy  the  consulship  after  Brutus,  and  by  degrees  it  grew 
to  be  forgotten  that  any  but  Patricians  had  ever  been  regarded 
as  eligible.  No  plan  was  adopted  by  which  Plebeians  could 
obtain  regular  entrance  into  the  Senate;  and,  as  their  life- 
members  died  off,  the  council  of  the  nation  was  once  more 
closed  to  them.  The  whole  power  of  the  government  was  en- 
grossed by  the  Patrician  order ;  which,  finding  itself  free  from 
any  check,  naturally  became  overbearing  and  oppressive. 

The  imminent  danger  of  a  restoration  at  one  time  is  indi- 
cated by  the  story,  which  Livy  tells,  of  the  origin  of  the  Dic- 
tatorship. Such  an  office  was  evidently  no  part  of  the  original 
idea  of  the  constitution ;  but  was  exactly  what  might  naturally 
have  been  devised  to  meet  an  emergency.  If  the  circumstances 
were  such  as  Livy  mentions,  the  first  Dictator  must  have  been 
named  by  the  Senate.  In  after-times  it  is  certain  that  the  Sen- 
ate claimed  the  right  of  nomination,  though  practically  they 
were  generally  satisfied  to  select  the  consul  who  should  nomi- 

The  loss  of  political  privilege  would  not,  it  is  probable,  by 
itself,  have  called  forth  any  active  movement  on  the  part  of 
the  commonalty.  It  required  the  stimulus  of  personal  suffer- 
ing to  stir  up  the  law-loving  Roman  to  offer  any  resistance  to 
constituted  authority.  This  stimulus  was  found  in  the  harsh 
enforcement,  not  long  after  the  commencement  of  the  Repub- 
lic, of  the  law  of  debtor  and  creditor — a  law  which,  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  time,  pressed  heavily  on  vast  numbers 
of  the  community,  and  threatened  to  deprive  them  of  their 
personal  freedom,  if  not  even  of  their  lives. 


The  operation  of  the  law  of  debt  acquired  political  impor- 
tance chiefly  from  the  large  number  of  the  debtors  at  this  period 
of  the  history ;  and  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  inquire  what 
were  the  circumstances  which  caused  the  wide  prevalence  of 
indebtedness  at  the  time — a  prevalence  which  threatened  revo- 
lution. Now,  in  the  first  place,  nothing  is  more  clear  than  that 
the  change  from  the  Monarchy  to  the  Republic  was  accom- 
panied by  a  diminution  in  the  power  and  prestige  of  Rome, 
which  sank  from  a  position  of  pre-eminence  among  the  central 
Italian  nations  to  one  of  comparative  insignificance.  The  Lat- 
ins profited  by  the  occasion  to  reclaim  their  complete  inde- 
pendence ;  the  Etruscans  assumed  an  aggressive  attitude,  and 
an  Etruscan  monarch,  Lars  Porsenna,  appears  to  have  actually 
for  a  term  of  years  held  Rome  in  subjection.  This  yoke  was 
indeed  shaken  off  after  a  while ;  but  a  permanent  result  of  the 
subjection  remained  in  the  loss  of  almost  all  the  territory  on 
the  right  bank  of  the  Tiber.  The  Romans  whose  lands  lay 
on  that  side  of  the  river  thus  lost  them;  while  at  the  same 
time  the  separation  between  Rome  and  Latium  laid  the  Roman 
territory  on  the  south  side  of  the  river  open  to  incursions. 
The  Sabines  and  Oscans  plundered  and  ravaged  freely;  the 
crops  were  ruined,  the  farm  buildings  and  implements  de- 
stroyed, the  cattle  carried  off.  A  general  impoverishment  was 
the  natural  consequence ;  and  this  would  of  course  be  felt  most 
by  the  poorest  classes,  and  especially  by  those  whose  small 
plots  of  land  were  their  sole  means  of  sustenance. 

The  poverty  thus  produced  was  further  aggravated,  i.  By 
the  exaction  of  taxes,  which  by  the  Roman  system  were  as- 
sessed upon  individuals,  not  for  a  single  year,  but  for  a  term 
of  five  years,  and  had  to  be  paid  for  that  term,  whether  the 
property  on  which  they  were  levied  remained  in  the  possession 
of  the  individual  or  not ;  2.  By  the  high  rate  of  interest,  which, 
under  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  time,  rose  probably 
from  the  normal  rate  of  10  per  cent,  (unciarium  fccnus)  to  such 
rates  as  30,  40,  or  perhaps  even  50  per  cent. ;  3.  By  the  non- 
payment of  the  rents  due  to  the  treasury  from  the  possessores, 
the  withholding  of  which  caused  the  property-tax  (tributum) 
to  become  a  serious  burden ;  4.  By  the  cessation  of  the  system 
of  allotments  (divisio  agrorum)  instituted  by  Servius,  which  was 



intended  to  compensate  the  Plebeians  for  their  exclusion  from 
the  right  of  possessio. 

When  the  sufferings  of  the  poorer  classes  had  reached  to  a 
certain  height  from  the  cruel  enforcements  of  the  laws  con- 
cerning debt,  murmurs  and  indignant  outcries  began  to  be 
heard.  At  first,  however,  the  opposition  of  the  discontented 
took  a  purely  legal  shape.  The  Roman  was  a  volunteer  army, 
not  a  conscription ;  and  the  Plebeians  had  been  wont,  at  the 
call  of  the  consuls,  freely  to  offer  their  services.  Now  they 
declined  to  give  in  their  names  unless  upon  the  promise  of  a 
redress  of  grievances.  Promises  to  this  effect  were  made  and 
broken.  The  Plebeians  then,  driven  to  despair,  "  seceded  " — 
that  is  to  say,  they  withdrew  from  Rome  in  a  body,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  prepare  for  themselves  new  abodes  across  the  Anio, 
intending  to  found  a  new  city  separate  from  the  burgesses, 
where  they  might  live  under  their  own  sole  government.  Such 
a  step  was  no  doubt  revolutionary ;  it  implied  the  complete  dis- 
ruption of  the  state ;  but  it  was  revolution  of  a  kind  which  in- 
volved no  bloodshed.  The  burghers,  however,  seeing  in  the 
step  taken  the  ruin  of  both  orders — for  Rome  divided  against 
herself  must  have  speedily  succumbed  to  some  one  or  other 
of  her  powerful  neighbors — felt  compelled  to  yield.  The  Plebs 
required  as  the  conditions  of  their  return  that  all  debts  of  per- 
sons who  could  prove  themselves  insolvent  should  be  can- 
celled; that  all  persons  in  the  custody  of  their  creditors  on 
account  of  debt  should  be  set  at  liberty;  and  that  certain 
guardians  of  the  Plebeian  order  should  be  annually  elected  by 
the  nation  at  large,  whose  persons  should  be  sacred,  who  should 
be  recognized  as  magistrates  of  the  nation,  and  whose  special 
business  should  be  to  defend  and  protect  from  injury  all  Plebe- 
ians appealing  to  them.  These  were  the  famous  "  Tribuni 
Plebis,"  or  "  Tribunes  of  the  Commons,"  who  played  so  im- 
portant a  part  in  the  later  history  of  the  Republic.  Their 
original  number  is  uncertain ;  but  it  would  seem  to  have  been 
either  five  or  two. 

It  is  evident  that  the  economical  portion  of  this  arrangement 
very  insufficiently  met  the  difficulty  of  the  existing  poverty; 
and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that,  besides  the  formal  provisos 
above  mentioned,  there  was  an  understanding  that  the  Plebe- 


ian  grievances  should  be  redressed  by  an  equitable  system  of 
allotments.  Such  a  system  was  advocated  shortly  afterwards, 
B.C.  484,  by  Sp.  Cassius,  one  of  the  consuls  under  whom  the 
Plebs  returned  from  their  secession,  but  was  violently  opposed 
by  the  bulk  of  the  Patrician  order,  and  cost  its  advocate  his  life. 
Still,  from  time  to  time,  concessions  of  this  kind  were  made, 
to  keep  the  Plebeians  in  good  humor;  and  gradually,  as  the 
territory  once  more  grew  in  size,  considerable  portions  of  it 
were  parcelled  out  to  small  proprietors. 

But  a  new  character  was  given  to  the  struggle  between  the 
orders  by  the  tribunate,  which  enabled  the  wealthier  Plebeians, 
whose  especial  grievance  was  their  exclusion  from  the  chief 
offices  in  the  state,  to  turn  the  efforts  of  their  order  to  the  ob- 
taining of  equal  political  privileges  and  thus  to  initiate  a  contest 
which  lasted  for  above  a  century.  The  first  step  taken  in  ad- 
vance was  by  the  law  of  Publilius  Volero  (B.C.  470),  the  main 
importance  of  which  was  that  it  assumed  the  initiative  in  legis- 
lation, hitherto  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  other  Order. 
When  the  attempt  thus  made  to  legislate  in  a  matter  of  public 
importance  succeeded,  when,  by  the  sanction  of  the  Senate  and 
Patricians,  the  rogatio  Publilia  became  law,  the  contest  was  vir- 
tually decided;  a  door  was  opened  by  means  of  which  an 
entrance  might  be  effected  into  the  very  citadel  of  the  constitu- 
tion ;  all  that  was  necessary  was  sufficient  patience  and  perse- 
verance, a  determination  in  spite  of  all  obstacles  to  press 
steadily  forward  to  the  required  end,  and  to  consent  perma- 
nently to  no  compromise  that  should  seriously  interfere  with 
the  great  principle  of  equal  rights. 

The  Plebeians,  victorious  in  this  first  struggle,  did  not  long 
rest  upon  their  oars.  In  B.C.  460  the  tribune,  C.  Terentilius 
Harsa,  brought  forward  a  proposition,  the  real  object  of  which 
was  a  complete  change  of  the  constitution.  He  proposed  the 
creation  of  a  board  of  commissioners,  half  Patrician,  half  Ple- 
beian, whose  duties  should  be  to  codify  the  existing  laws,  to 
limit  and  define  the  authority  of  the  consuls,  and  to  establish 
a  constitution  just  and  equitable  to  both  orders.  The  proposi- 
tion was  opposed  with  the  utmost  determination  and  violence. 
Even  at  the  last,  it  was  not  formally  carried;  but,  after  ten 
years  of  the  most  vehement  strife,  after  Rome,  through  the  con- 



tentions  between  the  orders,  had  several  times  been  nearly 
taken  by  the  Volscians,  and  had  once  been  actually  occupied 
by  a  band  of  adventurers  under  a  Sabine  named  Appius  Her- 
donius,  called  in  by  some  of  the  more  violent  of  the  Patrician 
body,  the  nobles  virtually  yielded — they  agreed  that  that 
should  be  done  which  the  law  proposed,  but  required  that  it 
should  be  done  in  another  way.  The  nation,  assembled  in  It's 
centuries,  should  freely  choose  the  ten  commissioners  to  whom 
so  important  a  task  was  to  be  intrusted,  and  who  would,  more- 
over, constitute  a  provisional  government,  superseding  for  the 
time  all  other  magistrates.  The  Plebeians  consented ;  and  the 
natural  consequence  was  that  ten  Patricians  were  chosen — Pa- 
tricians, however,  mostly  of  known  moderation,  who  might  be 
expected  to  perform  their  task  prudently  and  justly. 

The  First  Decemvirs  did  not  disappoint  the  expectations 
formed  of  them.  In  their  codification  of  the  laws  they  did  little 
but  stereotype  the  existing  practice,  putting,  for  the  most  part, 
into  a  written  form  what  had  previously  been  matter  of  prece- 
dent and  usage.  In  some  matters,  however,  where  the  law 
was  loose  and  indeterminate,  they  had  to  give  it  definiteness 
and  precision  by  expressing  for  the  first  time  its  provisions 
in  writing.  The  code  of  the  Twelve  Tables — "  fons  omnis 
publici  privatique  juris  " — which  dates  from  this  time,  was  a 
most  valuable  digest  of  the  early  Roman  law,  and,  even  in 
the  fragmentary  state  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us,  de- 
serves careful  study. 

The  fragments  of  the  code  have  been  published  by  several 
writers,  as  by  Haubold  in  his  "  Institutionum  juris  Romani 
privati  Lineamenta,"  Lipsiae,  1826;  and  by  Dirksen  in  his 
"  Uebersicht  der  bisherigen  Versuche  zur  Kritik  und  Herstell- 
ung  des  Textes  der  Zwolf-Tafel-Fragmente,"  Leipzig,  1824. 
The  subject  has  been  well  treated  by  Arnold  in  his  "  Roman 
History,"  Vol.  I.,  Chap.  XIV.  The  following  are  the  Tables, 
as  given  by  Dirksen,  the  original  form  of  the  language  being 
only  partially  preserved : 


















SI.    VOLET.    SVO.    VIVITO.    NI.    SVO.    VIVIT.    QVL    EM.    VINCTVM.    HABEBIT.    LIBRAS. 




































But  the  main  work  of  the  Decemvirs  was  the  constitution 
which  they  devised  and  sought  to  establish.  In  lieu  of  the 
double  magistracy,  half  Patrician  and  half  Plebeian,  which  had 
recently  divided  the  state,  and  had  threatened  actual  disrup- 
tion, the  Decemvirs  instituted  a  single  governmental  body — 
a  board  of  ten,  half  Patrician  and  half  Plebeian,  which  was  to 
supersede  at  once  the  consulate  and  the  tribunate,  and  to  be 
the  sole  Roman  executive.  The  centuries  were  to  elect ;  and 
the  Patrician  assembly  was,  probably,  to  confirm  the  election. 
It  is  suspected  that  the  duration  of  the  office  was  intended  to 
exceed  a  year ;  but  this  is  perhaps  uncertain. 

Fairly  as  this  constitution  was  intended,  and  really  liberal  as 


were  its  provisions,  as  a  practical  measure  of  relief  it  failed 
entirely.  One  member  of  the  board,  Appius  Claudius,  obtained 
a  complete  ascendency  over  his  colleagues,  and  persuaded 
them,  as  soon  as  they  came  into  office,  to  appear  and  act  as 
tyrants.  The  abolition  of  all  the  other  high  magistracies  had 
removed  those  checks  which  had  previously  restrained  consuls, 
tribunes,  and  even  dictators;  there  was  now  no  power  in  the 
state  which  could  legally  interfere  to  prevent  an  abuse  of 
authority,  unless  it  were  the  Senate ;  and  the  Senate  was  on 
the  whole  inclined  to  prefer  a  tyranny  which  did  not  greatly 
affect  its  own  members,  to  the  tumults  and  disorders  of  the 
last  forty  years.  Rather  than  see  the  tribunate  restored,  the 
Patricians,  and  their  representatives  the  senators,  were  pre- 
pared to  bear  much ;  and  thus  there  was  small  hope  of  redress 
from  this  quarter. 

It  was  on  the  Plebeians  that  the  yoke  of  the  Decemvirs 
pressed  most  heavily.  It  was  supposed  that,  as  they  had  now 
no  legal  mode  of  even  making  their  complaints  heard,  since 
there  were  no  tribunes  to  summon  the  tribes  to  meet,  they  at 
any  rate  might  be  oppressed  and  insulted  with  absolute  im- 
punity. Accordingly,  they  were  subjected  to  every  kind  of 
wrong  and  indignity — the  Decemvirs  and  their  partisans  plun- 
dered them,  outraged  their  persons,  heaped  contumely  upon 
them,  and  finally  attacked  them  in  the  tenderest  of  all  points — 
the  honor  of  their  families.  Then  at  length  resistance  was 
aroused.  As  the  wrongs  of  Lucretia  had  armed  the  Patricians 
ag^nst  Tarquin,  so  those  of  Virginia  produced  a  rising  of  the 
Plebeians  against  Appius.  The  armies,  which  were  in  the  field, 
revolted:  the  commons  at  home  rose;  and,  when  the  Senate 
still  declined  to  take  any  active  steps  against  the  Decemvirs, 
the  whole  mass  of  the  Plebeians  once  more  occupied  the  Mons 
Sacer.  The  walls  of  a  new  city  began  to  rise ;  the  Roman  state 
was  split  in  two ;  its  foreign  enemies,  seeing  their  opportunity, 
assumed  a  threatening  attitude;  destruction  was  imminent; 
when  at  last  the  Senate  yielded.  Appius  and  his  colleagues 
were  required  by  a  decree  (senatusconsultum)  to  resign  their 
offices,  and,  having  now  no  physical  force  on  which  they  could 
fall  back,  they  submitted,  and  went  through  the  formalities  of 




Forced  hurriedly  to  extemporize  a  government,  the  state  fell 
back  upon  that  form  which  had  immediately  preceded  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  First  Decemvirate.  It  was  adopted,  how- 
ever, with  certain  modifications.  Prior  to  the  Decemvirate  for 
above  thirty  years,  the  Patricians  had  claimed  and  exercised  the 
right  of  appointing  by  their  own  exclusive  assembly  one  of 
the  two  consuls.  It  was  impossible  at  the  present  conjuncture 
to  maintain  so  manifestly  unfair  an  usurpation.  The  free  elec- 
tion of  both  consuls  was  consequently  restored  to  the  cen- 
turies. The  tribunate  of  the  Plebs  was  re-established  exactly 
as  it  had  existed  before  the  Decemvirate.  But  the  position  of 
the  other  Plebeian  magistrates  was  improved.  The  Plebeian 
"  aediles  "  and  judges  were  allowed  the  "  sacrosanct  "  charac- 
ter ;  and  the  former  were  made  custodians  of  all  decrees  passed 
by  the  Senate,  which  it  henceforth  became  impossible  for  the 
magistrates  to  ignore  or  falsify.  Further,  a  distinct  recognition 
was  made  of  the  right  of  the  tribunes  to  consult  the  tribes  on 
matters  of  public  concern,  and  thus  initiate  legislation — a  right 
hitherto  resting  merely  upon  grounds  of  reason  and  prescrip- 

In  relinquishing  temporarily  their  claim  to  a  share  in  the 
supreme  magistracy  for  the  purpose  of  securing  at  any  cost 
the  restoration  of  the  much-valued  tribunate,  the  Plebeians 
were  far  from  intending  to  profess  themselves  satisfied  with 
the  exclusive  possession  of  high  office  by  the  other  party.  They 
expected,  perhaps,  that  some  proposition  for  giving  them  a 
certain  share  in  the  government  would  emanate  from  the  Patri- 
cians themselves,  who  were  not  universally  blind  to  the  justice 
of  their  claims.  But,  as  time  went  on  and  no  movement  in  this 
direction  was  made,  the  Plebeian  leaders  once  more  took  up 
the  question,  and  in  B.C.  442,  C.  Canuleius,  one  of  the  tribunes, 
brought  forward  two  separate  but  connected  laws,  one  opening 
the  consulship  to  the  Plebeian  Order,  the  other  legalizing  inter- 
marriage between  Patricians  and  Plebeians,  and  providing 
that  the  children  should  follow  the  rank  of  the  father.  Both 
laws  encountered  a  strenuous  opposition;  and  according  to 
one  authority,  no  concession  was  made  until  the  Plebs  once 
more  seceded,  this  time  across  the  Tiber  to  the  Janiculan  Hill, 
when  the  "  Intermarriage  Law  "  (lex  de  connubio)  was  passed, 


and,  in  lieu  of  the  other,  a  compromise  was  effected  between 
the  Orders.  It  was  agreed  to  put  the  consulate  in  commission, 
substituting  for  the  double  rule  of  two  equal  magistrates,  which 
had  hitherto  prevailed,  a  board  of  (probably)  five  persons*  of 
unequal  rank,  among  whom  the  consular  powers  were  to  be 
parcelled  out.  The  duties  with  respect  to  the  revenue,  and  the 
arrangement  of  the  roll  of  the  Senate,  of  the  knights,  and  of 
the  citizens  generally  in  the  centuries,  which  had  hitherto  been 
exercised  by  the  consuls,  were  separated  off  and  made  over  to 
two  "  Censors  "  elected  by  the  centuries  from  among  the  nobles 
only.  The  remaining  duties  of  the  consuls  were  consigned  to 
three  "  military  tribunes,"  also  elected  by  the  centuries,  but 
from  the  Patricians  and  Plebeians  indifferently.  The  latter 
officers  were  to  be  annual ;  the  former  were  to  hold  office  for 
a  term  of  five  years. 

The  working  of  this  constitution  was  extremely  unsatisfac- 
tory to  the  Plebeians.  By  means  of  the  irregular  alternation 
of  the  consulate  with  the  military  tribunate,  at  least  half  the 
supreme  magistracies  were  monopolized  by  the  nobles  with- 
out the  Plebeians  being  able  even  to  be  candidates.  With  re- 
spect to  the  other  half,  it  might  have  been  thought  that  they 
could  have  avenged  themselves.  But  practically  it  was  found 
that  only  on  rare  occasions,  under  circumstances  of  peculiar 
excitement,  could  the  centuries  be  induced  to  elect  a  Plebeian 
candidate.  The  Patricians  by  their  own  votes  and  those  of 
their  clients  in  the  centuries  of  the  first  class  had  almost 
the  complete  control  of  the  elections ;  and  during  nearly  forty 
years,  at  the  most  three  Plebeians  obtained  a  place  in  the 
college.  Even  then  their  position  was  insecure.  The  colleges 
of  sacred  lore  might  be  called  upon  to  inquire  whether  some 
accidental  informality  at  the  election  had  not  rendered  it  in- 
valid. Of  the  three  Plebeian  tribunes  elected  under  the  con- 
stitution of  B.C.  442,  one  was  made  to  resign  in  his  third  month 
of  office,  because  the  augural  tent  had  not  been  pitched  rightly. 

Nor  were  the  Plebeians  compensated  for  their  disappoint- 

♦  Mommsen  says  "eight" — two  censors,  and  six  military  tribunes; 
but  there  is  no  instance  of  a  board  of  six  military  tribunes  till  B.C.  402, 
forty  years  later;  after  which  time  there  is  no  instance  of  a  board  con- 
taining less  than  six. 



ment  with  respect  to  the  constitution  of  B.C.  442  by  mild  or 
liberal  treatment  in  other  respects  during  the  forty  years  that 
it  lasted  (B.C.  442  to  402).  The  dignity  of  the  censorship  was 
indeed  lessened  by  the  ^Emilian  law,  which  diminished  the 
duration  of  the  office  from  five  years  to  eighteen  months ;  but 
any  advantage  which  the  Plebeians  might  seem  to  have  gained 
in  this  respect  was  counterbalanced  by  the  elevation  of  the 
prefect  of  the  city,  an  exclusively  Patrician  officer,  to  the  posi- 
tion of  a  colleague  of  the  military  tribunes  when  there  were  no 
censors  in  office.  A  demand  which  the  Plebeians  made  for 
a  share  of  the  quaestorship  was  practically  eluded  in  the  way 
which  had  now  come  to  be  fashionable,  by  throwing  the  office 
open  to  both  Orders.  Requests  for  allotments  of  land  were 
either  wholly  rejected,  or  answered  by  niggardly  assignment's 
of  two  "  jugera  "  to  a  man  in  portions  of  the  territory  very 
open  to  attack  on  the  part  of  an  enemy.  The  state-rents  were 
generally  withheld  by  the  "  possessores ;  "  and,  to  make  up  the 
deficiency  in  the  revenue,  the  property-tax  was  unduly  aug- 
mented. The  demand  of  the  tribunes,  that  the  soldiers  should 
receive  pay  during  the  time  that  they  were  on  active  service, 
was  not  complied  with;  nor  was  any  thing  done  to  alleviate 
the  pressure  caused  by  the  high  rate  of  interest. 

Thus  the  Plebeians,  though,  by  the  letter  of  the  constitution, 
they  had  made  certain  not  inconsiderable  gains  since  the  abo- 
lition of  the  Decemvirate,  were  scarcely  better  contented  with 
their  position  in  the  state  than  they  had  been  when  Terentilius 
or  when  Canuleius  commenced  their  agitations.  And  the  Pa- 
tricians were  quite  aware  of  their  feelings.  Accordingly,  when, 
about  B.C.  403,  the  military  position  of  Rome  among  her  neigh- 
bors had  become  such  as  to  justify  the  nation  in  entering  upon 
a  more  important  war  than  any  hitherto  waged  by  the  Repub- 
lic, and  it  was  clear  that  success  would  depend  very  much 
upon  the  heartiness  and  unanimity  with  which  the  whole  nation 
threw  itself  into  the  struggle,  the  Patricians  themselves  came 
forward  with  proposals  for  a  change  in  the  military  tribunate, 
and  probably  one  also  in  the  censorship,  which  had  for  their 
object  the  better  contentation  of  the  other  Order.  A  new  con- 
stitution was  framed ;  and  at  the  same  time  it  was  agreed  that 
the  state-rents  should  be  carefully  collected,  and  from  the 


money  thus  obtained  regular  pay  should  be  g^ven  to  the  sol- 
diers, who  were  now  to  be  called  upon  to  serve  the  whole,  or 
nearly  the  whole,  of  the  year. 

The  wars  of  the  Republic  had  hitherto  been  of  minor  impor- 
tance. After  the  yoke  of  Porsenna  was  thrown  off  a  short  and 
sharp  struggle  had  supervened  with  the  Latins,  who  were  com- 
pelled by  Sp.  Cassius  (B.C.  491),  if  not  to  renew  their  old 
treaty,  at  any  rate  to  enter  into  a  league,  offensive  and  defen- 
sive, with  the  Romans.  The  Hemicans  of  the  Upper  Liris 
country  were  soon  afterwards  (B.C.  484)  forced  by  the  same 
general  to  join  the  alliance.  The  special  object  of  the  league 
was  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  the  Oscan  nations,  partic- 
ularly the  i^qui  and  Volsci,  who  were  now  at  the  height  of 
their  power.  A  long  struggle  with  these  nations,  attended  with 
very  varying  success,  had  followed.  Rome  had  at  times  been 
reduced  to  great  straits.  Many  Latin  cities  had  been  taken 
and  occupied  by  the  Volscians.  But,  after  above  half  a  century 
of  almost  perpetual  contest,  the  power  of  the  Oscans  began 
to  wane.  The  confederated  Romans,  Latins,  and  Hemicans 
recovered  most  of  their  lost  ground.  Tarracina  was  reoccu- 
pied,  B.C.  403.  At  the  same  time,  the  pressure  of  the  Sabines 
upon  Rome,  constant  in  the  earlier  years  of  the  Republic,  had 
ceased.  A  great  victory,  gained  by  the  consul  Horatius,  in 
B.C.  446,  had  relieved  Rome  of  this  enemy,  whose  superabun- 
dant energfies  found  for  many  years  an  ample  scope  in  South- 
em  Italy.  Under  these  circumstances  of  comparative  freedom 
from  any  pressing  danger,  Rome  felt  that  the  time  was  come 
when  she  might  make  a  fresh  start  in  the  race  for  power.  She 
was  cramped  for  room  towards  the  north  and  west  by  the  near 
vicinity  of  an  important  but  not  very  formidable  state,  Veii. 
Having  first  tested  her  adversary's  strength  in  a  contest  for 
the  possession  of  that  single  post  which  the  Etruscans  still 
held  south  of  the  Tiber,  namely,  Fidenae,  and  having  after  some 
difficulty  been  successful  so  far  (B.C.  423),  Rome  proceeded 
in  B.C.  402  to  enter  upon  a  fresh  war  with  Veii,  distinctly  in- 
tending to  effect,  if  she  could,  a  permanent  conquest. 

The  war  with  the  Veientines,  commenced  in  this  spirit, 
lasted,  according  to  the  tradition,  ten  years — B.C.  402  to  392. 
Rome  now  for  the  first  time  maintained  in  the  field  continu- 


ously  an  armed  force,  thus  laying  the  foundation  of  that "  stand- 
ing army  "  to  which  she  ultimately  owed  most  of  her  greatness. 
She  made  her  attack  on  the  powerful  Etruscan  state  at  a  fortu- 
nate time.  Almost  contemporaneously  with  her  first  serious 
aggressions  upon  the  southernmost  city  of  the  confederacy 
began  that  terrible  inroad  from  the  North  which  utterly  shat- 
tered and  broke  up  the  Etruscan  power  in  the  plain  of  the  Po, 
and  first  alarmed  and  then  seriously  crippled  the  strength  of 
the  Cis-Apennine  league.  Had  not  the  Gallic  invasion  occu- 
pied the  whole  attention  of  the  Northern  Etruscans,  it  is  prob- 
able that  they  would  have  made  common  cause  with  the  threat- 
ened Veil,  in  which  case  the  war  would  scarcely  have  terminated 
as  it  did  in  the  capture  and  ruin  of  the  city. 

The  successful  issue  of  the  war  with  Veii  encouraged  the 
Romans  to  fresh  efforts  in  the  same  direction.  Capena  was 
conquered  and  her  territory  absorbed  in  the  year  after  Veii  fell. 
Then  Falerii  was  attacked  and  forced  to  cede  some  of  her  lands. 
The  neighboring  towns  of  Nepete  and  Sutrium  submitted  at 
the  same  time,  and  became  Roman  dependencies.  Finally,  war 
was  declared  against  the  Volsinians,  and  the  Roman  arms  were 
carried  beyond  the  Ciminian  mountains.  Here  victory  was 
again  with  the  aggressors ;  but  the  success  failed  to  bring  any 
increase  of  territory. 

But  now  the  progress  of  Rome  received  a  sudden  and  ter- 
rible check.  The  Gallic  hordes,  which  had  begun  to  swarm 
across  the  Alps  about  B.C.  400,  and  had  conquered  Northern 
Etruria  nearly  at  the  time  when  the  Romans  took  Veii,  after 
a  brief  pause  crossed  the  Apennines,  and  spread  like  a  flood 
over  Central  Italy.  Whether  Rome  gave  them  any  special 
provocation,  or  no,  is  doubtful.  At  any  rate,  they  poured 
down  the  valley  of  the  Tiber  in  irresistible  force,  utterly  de- 
feated the  entire  armed  strength  of  the  Romans  upon  the  Allia, 
captured  the  city,  and  burnt  almost  the  whole  of  it,  except  the 
Capitol.  The  Capitol  itself  was  besieged  for  months,  but  still 
held  out,  when  the  Gauls,  weary  of  inaction  and  alarmed  for 
the  safety  of  their  conquests  in  the  plain  of  the  Po,  consented, 
on  the  payment  of  a  large  sum  of  money,  to  retire. 

It  might  have  been  expected  that  this  fearful  blow  would 
have  been  fatal  to  the  supremacy  of  Rome  among  the  Italic 


nations.  But  the  result  was  otherwise.  At  first,  indeed,  con- 
sequences followed  which  brought  the  Republic  into  serious 
danger,  and  seemed  to  menace  its  existence.  The  Latins  and 
Hernicans,  who  had  been  united  in  the  closest  possible  league 
with  the  Romans,  the  former  for  above,  the  latter  for  not  much 
less  than  a  century,  took  the  opportunity  of  Rome's  defeat  to 
declare  the  league  dissolved.  The  Oscan  nations,  the  Volsci 
especially,  renewed  their  attacks.  The  Etruscans  took  the 
offensive.  Rome  was  saved  from  immediate  destruction  by 
the  genius  of  Camillus,  and  then  gradually  rose  ag^in  to  power 
and  preponderance  by  her  own  inherent  energy.  To  account 
for  the  slightness  of  the  check  which  the  Gallic  conquest  gave 
to  her  external  prosperity,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  attack 
of  the  Gauls  was  not  really  upon  Rome  alone,  or  even  upon 
Rome  specially  and  peculiarly.  The  first  burst  of  their  fury 
had  fallen  on  the  Etruscans,  and  had  permanently  weakened 
that  important  people.  Their  later  irruptions  injured  the  Italic 
nations  generally,  not  Rome  in  particular.  The  Umbrians, 
Sabines,  Latins,  ^Equi,  and  Volsci  all  suffered,  perhaps  about 
equally.  Thus  Rome,  on  the  whole,  succeeded  in  maintaining 
her  place  among  the  Italian  states ;  and,  the  same  causes  which 
had  previously  given  her  a  preponderance  continuing  to  work, 
she  gradually  lifted  herself  up  once  more  above  her  neighbors. 
She  warred  successfully  with  the  Volscians,  and  with  several 
cities  of  the  Latins,  which  were  now  leagued  with  them.  She 
held  her  own  in  Etruria.  After  an  interval  of  ahvjut  a  genera- 
tion she  induced  the  Latins  and  compelled  the  Hernicans  to 
resume  their  old  position  of  confederates  (B.C.  355)  under  her 
hegemony.  Within  five-and-thirty  years  of  the  destruction  of 
the  city,  Rome  had  fully  recovered  from  all  the  effects  of  the 
blow  dealt  by  the  Gauls ;  and,  if  we  take  into  account  the  gen- 
eral weakness  caused  by  the  Gallic  ravages,  had  relatively  im- 
proved her  position. 

While  Rome  thus,  on  the  whole,  prospered  externally,  her 
internal  condition  was  also  gradually  improving.  The  second 
military  tribunate  was  not,  indeed,  very  much  more  successful 
than  the  first,  failing  equally  to  content  the  aspirations  of  the 
Plebeian  Order.  Though  it  gave  them  a  larger  proportion  of 
the  high  offices,  the  proportion  was  still  so  small — not  so  much 



as  one-twelfth — that  their  dissatisfaction,  not  unreasonably, 
continued.  They  never  obtained  the  military  tribunate  ex- 
cepting under  abnormal  circumstances ;  and  on  the  single  oc- 
casion on  which  they  gained  the  censorship  (B.C.  376),  it  was 
wrested  from  them  under  a  religious  pretext.  The  Patricians 
could  still,  ordinarily,  command  the  votes  of  the  centuries ;  and, 
if  a  Plebeian  obtained  office,  it  was  by  Patrician  sufferance  or 
contrivance.  Excepting  under  peculiar  circumstances,  the 
nobles  were  inclined  to  grasp  as  much  power  as  they  could; 
and  hence  the  Plebeians  felt  that  they  had  no  firm  hold  on  the 
constitution,  no  security  for  the  continuance  of  even  that  small 
share  of  office  which  had  practically  fallen  to  them.  They 
would  probably  have  set  themselves  to  obtain  a  change  in  the 
constitution  many  years  before  the  Licinio-Sextian  laws  were 
actually  brought  forward,  had  not  the  Gallic  invasion  produced 
such  an  extent  of  poverty  and  debt  as  effectually  cramped  for 
a  time  all  Plebeian  aspirations,  changing  the  struggle  for  equal 
rights  into  a  struggle  for  existence. 

The  first  important  result  of  the  general  prevalency  of  dis- 
tress among  the  Plebeians  was  the  attempt  of  M.  Manlius. 
Less  pure  and  disinterested  than  his  prototype,  Spurius  Cass- 
ius,  he  made  the  Plebeian  wrongs  the  stalking-horse  of  his  own 
ambition.  Partly  tempted,  partly  goaded  into  crime,  he  is  en- 
titled to  our  pity  even  though  we  condemn  him.  His  intentions 
were  probably  at  the  first  honest,  and  the  means  that  he  de- 
signed to  use  legal ;  but  the  opposition  which  he  encountered 
drove  him  to  desperate  measures,  and  he  became  in  the  end 
a  dangerous  conspirator.  Well  would  it  have  been  for  Rome 
had  she  possessed  a  method,  like  that  which  Athens  enjoyed  in 
the  ostracism,  of  securing  her  own  liberties  by  the  temporary 
banishment,  rather  than  the  death,  of  a  great  citizen ! 

During  the  Manlian  struggle,  and  immediately  after  it,  some 
slight  efforts  were  made  by  the  government  to  relieve  the  gen- 
eral destitution.  In  B.C.  382  two  thousand  Plebeians  received 
allotments  of  two  and  a  half  jugera  at  Satricum.  Two  years 
later,  colonies  were  sent  out  to  Nepete  in  Etruria  and  to  the 
Pontine  marsh  district.  But  these  were  mere  palliatives,  and 
in  no  way  met  or  grappled  with  the  disease.  It  was  necessary, 
if  the  bulk  of  the  Plebeian  Order  was  not  to  be  swept  away  from 


the  state,  becoming  the  slaves  of  the  Patricians  or  of  foreigners, 
that  measures  should  be  taken  on  a  large  scale,  both  to  meet 
the  present  distress,  and  to  prevent  such  crises  from  recurring. 

Great  difficulties  call  for,  and  seem  in  a  way  to  produce, 
great  men.  Fourteen  years  after  the  distress  had  become  con- 
siderable owing  to  the  Gallic  inroad,  two  Plebeians  of  high 
rank  and  great  ability,  C.  Licinius  Stolo  and  L.  SextiuSj  came 
forward  with  a  scheme  of  legislation  skillfully  framed  so  as  to 
cover  all  the  various  heads  of  Plebeian  grievance,  and  to  pro- 
vide at  once  a  remedy  for  the  actually  existing  evils  and  secur- 
ity against  future  oppression.  Considering  that  there  were  two 
kinds  of  evil  to  remedy,  political  inequality  and  want,  they 
framed  their  measures  against  both.  For  the  immediate  relief 
of  the  needy,  they  brought  forward  their  "  lex  de  cere  alieno" 
which  provided  that  whatever  had  been  paid  on  any  debt  in 
the  way  of  interest  should  be  counted  as  a  repayment  of  the 
principal  and  deducted  from  the  amount  due;  and  that  the 
balance  remaining,  if  any,  should  be  demandable  only  in  in- 
stallments, which  should  be  spread  over  the  space  of  three 
years.  For  the  prevention  of  the  poverty  in  future,  they  pro- 
posed their  "  lex  agraria  " — which,  in  the  first  place,  threw 
open  the  right  of  occupying  the  public  land  to  the  Plebeians ; 
in  the  second,  affixed  a  limit  beyond  which  occupation  should 
not  be  carried ;  and  in  the  third,  required  all  occupiers  to  em- 
ploy in  the  cultivation  of  their  farms  a  certain  definite  propor- 
tion of  free  labor.  For  the  establishment  of  the  principle  of 
political  equality,  they  proposed  the  restoration  of  the  consul- 
ship, with  the  proviso  that  one  of  the  two  consuls  should  each 
year  be  a  Plebeian  (lex  de  consulatti)  ;  and  the  equal  division  of 
a  sacred  office,  that  of  the  keepers  of  the  Sibylline  books,  be- 
tween the  two  Orders  {lex  de  deceniviris  sacroriim). 

The  importance  of  these  laws  was  immense.  They  estab- 
lished fully  the  principle  of  the  equality  of  the  two  orders,  both 
as  respected  sacred  and  civil  office — a  principle  which,  once 
admitted,  was  sure  to  work  itself  out  to  the  full  in  course  of 
time.  They  greatly  alleviated  the  existing  poverty,  and  by  the 
two  provisions  for  extending  the  right  of  occupation  to  Ple- 
beians, and  compelling  the  employment  of  a  large  amount  of 
free  labor  on  the  public  lands,  they  made  considerable  provision 


against  extreme  poverty  in  the  future.  Above  all,  they  se- 
cured to  the  Plebeians  a  succession  of  champions  in  the  highest 
offices  of  the  State,  who  would  watch  over  their  interests  and 
protect  them  against  unfair  treatment.  Naturally,  therefore, 
being  so  important,  the  laws  were  opposed  with  the  utmost 
determination  by  the  other  Order.  The  struggle,  according 
to  some  authorities,  was  of  eleven  years'  duration.  It  was 
probably  not  until  a  "  secession  "  had  begun,  or  at  any  rate 
was  threatened,  that  the  Patricians  yielded,  the  laws  received 
the  sanction  of  both  the  Senate  and  the  Assembly  of  the  nobles, 
and  a  Plebeian  consul,  L.  Sextius,  was  elected,  B.C.  363. 

It  might  have  seemed  that  the  struggle  between  the  Orders 
would  now  have  come  to  a  close — that  when  the  highest  civil, 
and  one  of  the  highest  religious,  offices  had  been  once  opened 
to  the  Plebeian  Order,  there  remained  nothing  which  the  other 
Order  could  regard  as  worth  fighting  for.  But  the  fact  was 
otherwise.  Not  only  were  there,  now  as  ever,  among  the  Patri- 
cians those  who  would  not  yield  without  a  struggle  even  the 
last  "  rag  of  privilege ; "  but  there  existed  in  the  body  at  this 
time  a  party  disinclined  to  view  the  recent  defeat  as  decisive, 
or  to  accept  it  as  final.  During  the  quarter  of  a  century  which 
followed  on  the  passage  of  the  Licinio-Sextian  laws,  it  was 
uncertain  whether  or  no  the  Plebeian  advance  could  be  main- 
tained. A  certain  amount  of  reaction  set  in.  For  the  space 
of  fourteen  years — from  B.C.  352  to  B.C.  339 — the  regular 
operation  of  the  Licinio-Sextian  constitution  was  set  aside. 
Instead  of  Plebeian  consuls  following  each  other  in  regular 
succession  year  after  year,  the  Fasti  show  during  the  fourteen 
years  seven  Plebeian  names  only,  while  there  are  twenty-one 

The  illegal  setting  aside  of  the  Licinio-Sextian  constitution 
could  not  fail  to  produce  among  the  more  prudent  and  far- 
seeing  of  the  Plebeians  violent  discontent.  If  a  party  in  the 
State  is  once  allowed  to  begin  the  practice  of  setting  the  law 
at  nought,  there  is  no  saying  where  it  will  stop.  The  old 
champions  of  the  Plebeian  cause — the  Licinii,  Genucii,  Publilii, 
etc. — must  have  been  violently  angered ;  and  as  time  went  on 
and  the  illegality  continued,  the  bulk  of  the  Order  must  have 
become  more  and  more  disgusted  with  their  own  renegades 


and  with  the  Patrician  usurpers.  These  last  must  have  felt, 
during  the  whole  time  of  the  usurpation,  that  they  walked  upon 
a  hidden  volcano — that  a  fire  might  at  any  moment  burst  forth 
which  would  imperil  the  very  existence  of  the  community. 

It  was  probably  with  the  view  of  pacifying  and  soothing  the 
discontented,  that  the  Patricians  granted  during  this  interval 
many  boons  to  the  poorer  classes.  The  re-establishment  of  the 
uncial  rate  of  interest  (10  per  cent.)  in  B.C.  351,  and  the  subse- 
quent reduction  of  the  rate  by  one-half  in  B.C.  344,  were  pop- 
ular measures,  evidently  designed  to  gratify  the  lower  orders. 
The  tax  on  the  manumission  of  slaves  (B.C.  354)  would  also 
please  them,  since  it  would  fall  wholly  upon  the  wealthy.  Of 
a  still  more  popular  character  were  the  general  liquidation  of 
debts,  in  B.C.  349,  by  means  of  a  Commission  empowered  to 
make  advances  from  the  treasury  to  all  needy  persons  who 
could  offer  a  fair  security ;  and  the  suspension  of  the  property- 
tax,  and  spread  of  the  debts  over  the  space  of  three  years, 
which  were  among  the  measures  of  relief  adopted  in  B.C.  344. 
The  practical  opening  to  the  Plebeians  without  a  struggle  of 
the  civil  offices  parallel  with  the  Consulate — the  Dictatorship 
and  the  Mastership  of  the  Knights  (B.C.  353) — may  also  be 
regarded  as  among  the  politic  concessions  of  this  period,  made 
for  the  sake  of  keeping  the  Plebeians  in  good  humor,  and  pre- 
venting an  outbreak. 

But,  though  these  boons  and  blandishments  effected  some- 
thing, it  was  felt  nevertheless  that  the  state  of  affairs  was  unset- 
tled, and  that,  on  the  occurrence  of  any  convenient  opportunity, 
there  would  probably  be  a  rising.  Accordingly  the  govern- 
ment determined,  so  far  as  in  it  lay,  to  avoid  furnishing  an 
opportunity ;  and  hence,  for  almost  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  the  Roman  State,  we  find  a  policy  of  peace  adopted  and 
steadily  maintained  for  a  series  of  years.  Between  the  years 
B.C.  355  and  347,  treaties  of  peace  were  concluded  with  all  the 
important  powers  of  Central  Italy ;  and  Rome  left  herself  no 
enemy  against  whom  she  could  legfitimately  commence  a  war 
excepting  the  shattered  remnants  of  the  Oscan  nations  and 
perhaps  the  Sabines  of  the  tract  beyond  the  Anio. 

At  length,  in  B.C.  340,  twelve  years  after  the  Licinio-Sex- 
tian  constitution  had  been  set  aside,  an  occasion  offered  which 


tempted  the  government  to  depart  from  its  peace  policy,  and 
to  run  the  risk  of  internal  trouble  which  was  well  known  to 
be  implied  in  the  commencement  of  a  great  and  important  war. 
The  temptation,  one  which  it  was  impossible  to  resist,  was  the 
offer  of  the  Campanians  to  become  Roman  subject-allies,  if 
Rome  would  protect  them  against  the  Samnites.  To  accept 
this  oflfer  was  to  more  than  double  the  Roman  territory;  to 
reject  it  was  greatly  to  strengthen  the  Samnites,  already  the 
chief  power  of  the  south  of  Italy.  The  government,  which 
though  Patrician,  was  still  Roman,  was  too  patriotic  to  hesi- 
tate. Campania  was  therefore  received  into  alliance,  and  the 
First  Samnite  War  was  the  immediate  consequence. 

The  military  operations  of  the  war  will  be  described  in  the 
next  portion  of  this  book  (Third  Period) ;  but  its  eflfect  on  the 
civil  history  is  too  closely  connected  with  the  period  of  which 
we  are  now  treating  to  admit  of  separation  from  it.  The  Ro- 
man army,  having  carried  on  a  successful  campaign,  wintered 
in  Campania;  and  the  soldier-citizens,  having  thus  had  an 
opportunity  of  consulting  together,  determined  to  mutiny. 
Some  were  for  a  "  secession  "  to  Capua,  but  the  majority  were 
for  enforcing  their  will  upon  the  usurping  government  at 
Rome.  In  vain  the  consuls,  perceiving  what  was  afloat,  tried 
to  disperse  the  army  little  by  little  before  an  outbreak  should 
come.  Their  intention  was  perceived,  and  the  mutiny  took 
place  at  once.  The  army  marched  upon  Rome  and  made  its 
demands — the  government  met  it  with  a  hasty  levy,  but  these 
troops  refused  to  fight.  Long  negotiations  followed.  At 
length,  a  tribune  of  the  Plebs,  a  Genucius,  proposed  and  carried 
through  a  series  of  laws,  which  were  accepted  on  both  sides 
as  terms  of  reconciliation.  The  Licinian  constitution  was  prac- 
tically re-established ;  but  it  was  enacted,  as  a  just  penalty  on 
the  Patricians  for  their  repeated  usurpation  of  both  consul- 
ships, that,  though  both  consuls  might  never  legally  be  Patri- 
cians, it  should  be  allowable  for  both  of  them  to  be  Plebeians. 
To  prevent  any  future  seduction  of  a  Plebeian  party  by  the 
temptation  of  accumulated  offices,  it  was  enacted  that  no  Ple- 
beian should  henceforth  hold  the  same  office  twice  within  ten 
years,  or  two  offices  in  the  same  year.  To  alleviate  the  remain- 
ing pressure  of  debt,  there  was  an  absolute  abolition  of  all  out- 



standing  claims,  and  a  law  was  passed  making  the  lending  o! 
money  upon  interest  illegal.  Some  military  grievances  were 
at  the  same  time  redressed,  provision  being  made  that  no  soldier 
should  be  dismissed  the  service  without  cause  shown,  and  that 
no  petty  officer  should  be  degraded  to  the  ranks.  On  these 
conditions  peace  was  re-established ;  and  domestic  tranquillity 
being  attained,  Rome  was  once  more  ready  to  devote  her  whole 
strength  to  the  forwarding  of  her  interests  abroad. 


History  of  Rome  from  the  breaking  out  of  the  First  Samnite 
War,  B.C.  340,  to  the  Commencement  of  the  Wars  with 
Carthage,  B.C.  264.* 

The  Third  Period  of  Roman  History  is  that  of  the  great  wars 
in  Italy,  whereby  Rome  succeeded  in  making  herself  mistress 
of  the  entire  Peninsula  proper.  It  comprises  the  four  Samnite 
Wars,  the  great  Latin  War,  the  war  with  Pyrrhus,  a  war  with 
the  Gauls,  and  several  minor  wars  terminating  in  the  conquest 
of  the  other  lesser  Italian  nations.  The  external  history  of  the 
period  is  thus  of  the  highest  interest ;  while  the  internal  his- 
tory is,  comparatively  speaking,  scanty  and  unimportant. 

When  Rome  determined  to  accept  the  Campanians  as  sub- 
ject-allies, she  broke  her  treaty  with  Samnium,  and  practically 
made  a  declaration  of  war.  Campania  was  a  Samnite  depen- 
dency which  had  revolted,  and  which  the  Samnites  were  bent 
on  subjugating.    The  interposition  of  Rome  in  the  quarrel  re- 

*  Sources.  Authors. — Livy  and  Diodorus  are  the  chief  authorities 
for  the  earlier  portion  of  this  period;  but  the  latter  writer  fails  us  after 
B.C.  302.  The  fragments  of  Appian's  "  Samnitica  "  are  of  some  value. 
For  the  war  with  Pyrrhus,  Plutarch's  "  Life  "  of  that  hero  is  the  main 
source;  but  his  narrative  must  be  supplemented  from  the  fragments 
of  Dio  Cassius,  Dionysius,  and  Appian,  and  from  the  continuous  nar- 
ratives of  Justin,  Orosius,  and  Zonaras.  For  the  period  following  the 
departure  of  Pyrrhus  from  Italy  (B.C.  275  to  264)  these  latter  writers 
are  almost  our  sole  authorities.  We  may  consult,  however,  with  ad- 
vantage the  "  Epitomes "  of  Livy  and  the  brief  abstract  of  Floras. 
Inscriptions. — The  Fasii  Capitolini  are  full  and  tolerably  continu- 
ous for  the  greater  portion  of  this  period. 


sembled  that  of  Athens  in  the  contest  between  Corinth  and 
Corey ra.  Morally,  it  could  not  be  justified;  but,  as  a  matter 
of  policy,  it  could  not  be  impugned.  Rome  already  saw  that 
her  most  formidable  Italian  rival  was  Samnium,  and  that  it 
was  with  Samnium  she  would  have  to  contend  for  the  first* 
place  in  Italy.  A  step  which  at  once  strengthened  herself  and 
weakened  her  antagonist  could  not  but  be  expedient;  and 
we  can  not  be  surprised  that,  despite  its  injustice,  the  step  was 

Rome,  about  to  engage  in  a  war  for  supremacy  with  Latium, 
strengthened  herself  by  an  alliance  with  the  knot  of  Sabine 
communities  known  as  "  the  Marsian  League."  Latium  ob- 
tained the  adhesion  of  the  Campanians,  Sidicinians,  and  Vol- 
scians.  Samnium  was  an  active  ally  to  neither  party,  but  took 
the  opportunity,  which  the  contest  offered,  to  advance  her 
frontier  on  the  side  of  the  Volscian  territory.  The  struggle 
between  the  two  main  belligerents  was  begun  and  concluded 
within  the  space  of  three  years,  and,  indeed,  was  virtually  de- 
cided by  the  events  of  the  first  campaign.  The  battles  of  Vesu- 
vius and  Trifanum  (B.C.  337)  were  stoutly  contested  by  the 
Latins,  but  nevertheless  were  very  decided  Roman  victories. 
Their  effect  was  to  break  up  the  confederacy.  Many  states 
at  once  submitted.  Others  continued  a  desultory  and  inef- 
fectual resistance;  but  by  the  end  of  B.C.  335  the  last  Latin 
town  had  made  its  submission ;  and  Rome,  having  effected  the 
conquest,  proceeded  to  the  work  of  pacification. 

The  conclusion  of  the  great  struggle  with  Latium  is  followed 
by  a  pause  of  twelve  years,  during  which  Rome  undertook 
nothing  but  trivial  and  unimportant  wars,  and  those  chiefly 
wars  which  were  forced  upon  her.  Her  action  was  paralyzed 
by  two  causes,  one  internal,  the  other  external.  Her  internal 
danger  was  from  the  subjected  Latins,  who  were  known  to  be 
discontented  with  their  treatment,  and  might  be  expected  to 
revolt  the  moment  Rome  should  enter  upon  any  important 
contest.  The  external  cause  of  alarm  was  the  invasion  of  Alex- 
ander of  Epirus,  uncle  of  Alexander  the  Great,  who  landed  in 
Italy,  B.C.  331,  at  the  invitation  of  the  Tarentines.  Alexan- 
der's quarrel  was  mainly  with  the  Samnites  and  their  depen- 
dent allies;   but,  if  he  had  been  successful  against  them,  he 


would  probably  have  attempted  the  conquest  of  Italy.  Rome, 
doubtful  of  the  result,  protected  herself  by  a  treaty  with  the 
invader,  and  then  nursed  her  strength  and  prepared  herself  to 
resist  him  if  he  should  attack  her. 

The  reverses  which  befell  Alexander  of  Epirus,  about  B.C. 
325,  encouraged  the  Romans  to  resume  their  old  policy  of 
aggression,  and  to  take  steps  which  led  naturally  and  almost 
necessarily  to  the  renewal  of  the  struggle  with  Samnium.  By 
founding  the  colony  of  Fregellae  on  land  conquered  by  the 
Samnites  from  the  Volscians,  a  challenge  was  flung  down  to 
Samnium,  which  she  could  scarcely  refuse  to  take  up.  This 
was  followed  by  an  attack  on  Palaeopolis,  an  independent  Greek 
city,  which  had  long  been  under  Samnite  protection.  War 
ensued  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  time  had,  in  fact,  come 
when  Rome  was  prepared  to  contest,  with  the  power  which 
she  recognized  as  her  great  rival,  the  mastery  of  Southern  Italy. 
Mistress  of  Latium  and  Campania,  and  secured  by  treaties  from 
any  early  Etruscan  attack,  she  felt  herself  equal  to  a  vast  effort ; 
and  she  therefore  determined  to  seize  the  occasion  for  a  war 
which  should  decide  whether  the  hegemony  of  the  peninsula, 
or  at  any  rate  of  its  southern  portion,  should  belong  to  herself 
or  to  the  Samnites. 

The  Second  Samnite  War — the  duel  between  the  two  chief 
races  of  Italy — covered  a  space  of  twenty-one  years,  from  B.C. 
323  to  303,  inclusive.  It  divides  itself  naturally  into  three  por- 
tions. During  the  first,  from  B.C.  323  to  319,  the  war  lan- 
guished, neither  party  apparently  putting  forth  its  full  strength. 
During  the  second,  from  B.C.  319  to  312,  the  issue  was  really 
determined  by  the  three  great  battles,  of  the  Caudine  Forks,  of 
Lautulae,  and  of  Cinna.  The  third  period,  from  B.C.  312  to 
303,  was  again  one  of  languid  hostilities,  the  war  being  un- 
duly spun  out,  partly  by  the  stubborn  resistance  of  the  beaten 
party,  partly  through  the  desultory  attacks  which  were  made 
upon  Rome  during  these  years  by  various  enemies. 

The  Second  Samnite  War  brought  the  disaffection  of  the 
Latins  very  rapidly  to  a  head.  In  B.C.  322,  the  second  year 
of  the  war,  there  was  beyond  a  doubt  a  great  Latin  revolt. 
Tusculum,  Velitrae,  and  Privemum,  three  of  the  cities  which 
had  experienced  the  harshest  treatment,  took  the  lead.     A 



night  attack  seems  to  have  been  made  on  Rome,  and  great 
alarm  caused.  The  Roman  government,  however,  met  the 
danger  with  its  usual  wisdom.  While  some  recommended 
measures  of  extreme  violence,  the  Senate  adopted  a  policy  of 
conciliation.  Terms  were  made  with  the  rebels,  some  of  whom 
were  given,  others  promised,  full  citizenship.  The  discon- 
tented part  of  Latium  was,  in  fact,  incorporated  into  Rome. 
To  mark  the  completeness  and  reality  of  the  union,  L.  Fulvius, 
the  leader  of  the  revolt,  became  consul  for  the  year,  B.C.  321. 
Henceforth  Latium  was  satisfied  with  its  position,  and  con- 
tinued faithful  through  all  the  later  troubles  and  rebellions. 

An  interval  of  five  years  only — B.C.  303  to  298 — separates 
the  Second  from  the  Third  Samnite  War.  Rome  utilized  it 
by  completely  reducing  the  remnant  of  the  yEquian  people,  by 
bringing  the  four  nations  forming  the  Marsian  League  into 
the  position  of  her  subject-allies,,  by  making  alliances  with  the 
Frentani  and  Picentini,  and  by  seizing  and  occupying  the 
strong  position  of  Nequinum  (Narnia)  in  Umbria.  She  also 
during  this  period  sent  aid  to  the  Lucanians,  who  were  at- 
tacked by  Cleonymus  of  Sparta.  Samnium  probably  nego- 
tiated, during  the  pause,  with  the  Etruscans,  Umbrians,  and 
Gauls,  taking  steps  towards  the  formation  of  that  "  League 
of  Italy  "  which  she  brought  to  bear  against  Rome  in  the  ensu- 
ing war. 

The  Third  Samnite  War  is  the  contest  of  confederated  Italy 
against  the  terrible  enemy  whose  greatness  was  now  seen  to 
threaten  every  power  in  the  peninsula.  Its  turning-point, 
which  well  deserves  its  place  among  the  ten  or  twelve  "  De- 
cisive Battles  of  the  World,"  was  the  battle  of  Sentinum.  After 
two  years  of  comparatively  petty  warfare,  Samnium,  in  B.C. 
296,  brought  the  projected  alliance  to  bear.  Gellius  Egnatius 
marched,  with  the  flower  of  the  Samnite  force,  across  Central 
Italy  into  Etruria.  The  Gauls  and  Umbrians  joined ;  and  in 
B.C.  295,  the  confederate  army  of  the  four  nations  advanced  up- 
on Rome,  which  appeared  to  be  on  the  brink  of  destruction.  But 
a  bold  step  taken  by  the  Romans  saved  them.  Instead  of  stand- 
ing merely  on  the  defensive,  they  met  the  invaders  with  one 
army  under  the  consuls  Fabius  and  Decius,  while  they  marched 
another  into  the  heart  of  Etruria.    On  hearing  this,  the  selfish 


Etruscans,  deserting  their  confederates,  drew  off  to  protect 
their  own  country.  The  Samnites  and  Gauls  retired  across  the 
Apennines  to  Sentinum,  losing  the  Umbrians  on  the  way,  who 
remained  to  protect  their  own  towns.  Rome  followed  the  re- 
treating force,  and  after  a  desperate  struggle  defeated  it,  thus 
really  deciding  the  war.  The  confederation  was  broken  up. 
The  Gauls  took  no  further  part  in  the  contest.  Rome  carried 
it  on  separately  with  Etruria  on  the  one  side  and  Samnium 
on  the  other,  till  the  exhaustion  of  both  powers  compelled  them 
to  make  peace.  Samnium  was  forced  to  submit  uncondition- 
ally, was  mulcted  in  a  portion  of  its  territory,  and  became  a 
subject-ally  of  Rome. 

Ten  years  intervened  between  the  close  of  the  Third  Samnite 
War  and  the  commencement  of  the  next  great  struggle  in 
which  Rome  was  engaged.  Much  obscurity  rests  upon  this 
interval,  in  which  we  lose  the  guidance  of  Livy  without  obtain- 
ing that  of  Plutarch.  It  appears,  however,  that  shortly  after 
the  close  of  the  Third  Samnite  War  troubles  broke  out  afresh 
in  Southern  Italy  in  consequence  of  a  war  between  the  Luca- 
nians  and  the  Greeks  of  Thurii,  B.C.  288.  Rome  interfered 
to  protect  Thurii,  whereupon  the  Lucanians  eflfected  a  union 
against  Rome  of  the  Gauls  (Senones),  Etruscans,  Umbrians, 
Samnites,  Lucanians,  Bruttians,  and  Tarentines,  which,  in  the 
year  B.C.  283,  menaced  the  Republic  with  destruction.  But, 
though  brought  into  serious  danger,  Rome  triumphed  over 
her  difficulties.  Fabricius  defeated  the  combined  Lucanians 
and  Bruttians,  relieved  Thurii,  and  received  the  submission 
of  almost  all  the  Greek  towns  of  the  neighborhood  except  Ta- 
rentum.  Dolabella  avenged  on  the  Senonian  Gauls  the  defeat 
of  Metellus  at  Arretium,  by  seizing  their  country  and  driving 
them  beyond  its  borders.  The  Etruscans,  and  their  allies,  the 
Boii  (Gauls),  were  defeated  with  great  slaughter  at  Lake  Vadi- 
mon.  Tarentum  alone  remained  unpunished.  It  was  prob- 
ably to  inflict  damage  on  this  covert  enemy,  with  whom  as  yet 
there  had  been  no  actual  contest,  that  a  Roman  fleet  was  sent 
in  B.C.  282,  contrary  to  the  terms  of  an  existing  treaty,  to 
cruise  round  the  heel  of  Italy.  This  fleet  having  been  attacked 
and  sunk  by  the  Tarentines,  who  also  took  possession  of  Thu- 
rii, Rome  in  B.C.  281  declared  war  against  Tarentum,  which, 



accustomed  to  lean  on  Greece  for  support,  invited  over  the 
Epirote  prince  Pyrrhus,  who  had  already  made  himself  a  name 
by  his  victory  over  Demetrius  PoUorcetes,  and  his  first  brief 
reign  over  Macedonia. 

The  war  with  Pyrrhus  lasted  six  years,  from  B.C.  280  to  274. 
It  was  the  first  trial  of  strength  between  Macedonized  Greece 
and  Rome.  Pyrrhus  brought  with  him  into  Italy  an  army  of 
22,500  foot  and  3000  horse,  disciplined  in  the  Macedonian  fash- 
ion, and  also  20  elephants.  At  the  outset  he  obtained  no  troops 
from  any  Italians  but  the  Tarentines,  whose  services  were  al- 
most worthless.  Nevertheless,  in  his  first  battle  on  the  Siris, 
though  with  an  army  inferior  in  number,  he  completely  de- 
feated the  Romans,  chiefly  by  the  help  of  his  elephants,  which 
disconcerted  the  Roman  cavalry.  All  Lower  Italy  then  joined 
him;  and,  in  the  remainder  of  the  contest,  he  had  the  assis- 
tance of  the  Italian  Greeks  generally,  of  the  Lucanians,  the 
Bruttians,  and,  above  all,  the  Samnites.  But  neither  after  his 
first  victory,  near  Heracleia,  nor  after  his  second,  at  Ausculum 
(Ascoli),  was  he  able  to  efifect  any  thing.  The  battles  which 
he  gained  were  stoutly  contested,  and  cost  him,  each  of  them, 
several  thousands  of  men,  whom  he  could  not  replace  and  could 
ill  spare.  His  power  necessarily  waned  as  time  went  on.  His 
allies,  except  the  Samnites,  were  of  little  value.  His  Greek 
troops  harmonized  ill  with  the  Italians.  Above  all,  while  he 
fought  for  glory,  the  Romans  fought  for  their  existence ;  and 
their  patriotism  and  patient  courage  proved  more  than  a  match 
for  the  gallantry  and  brilliant  strategy  of  their  opponent.  It 
was  as  much  from  disgust  at  his  ill  success,  so  far  as  the  general 
ends  of  the  war  were  concerned,  as  from  the  attraction  of  a 
tempting  ofifer,  that  Pyrrhus,  in  B.C.  278,  quitted  Italy  for 
Sicily,  accepted  the  Protectorate  of  the  Greeks,  and  engaged 
in  a  war  with  the  Carthaginians  which  threw  them  on  the  Ro- 
man side.  Successful  in  this  quarter  to  a  certain  extent,  but, 
with  his  usual  restlessness,  leaving  his  conquest  uncompleted, 
the  Epirote  prince  returned  to  Italy  with  difficulty ;  and,  hav- 
ing lost  Sicily  almost  at  the  moment  of  his  departure,  engaged 
the  Romans  in  a  third  battle  near  Beneventum,  and  being  there 
completely  defeated,  gave  up  the  war,  and  returned  with  the 
almost  entire  loss  of  his  army,  but  with  heightened  reputation, 
to  his  native  country. 


The  departure  of  Pyrrhus  was  followed  rapidly  by  the  com- 
plete subjugation  of  Southern  Italy.  Tarentum  surrendered 
B.C.  2^2.  Lucania  and  Bruttium  submitted  in  the  same  year. 
Rhegium  was  stormed,  B.C.  270.  In  Samnium  a  guerrilla  war- 
fare was  maintained  till  B.C.  269,  when  resistance  finally  ceased. 
The  Sallentines  and  Messapians  were  conquered  in  B.C.  266. 
At  the  same  time  Rome  extended  and  consolidated  her  power 
in  the  North.  A  quarrel  was  picked  with  Picenum  in  B.C.  268. 
War  and  subjection  followed;  and,  to  prevent  future  resist- 
ance, half  the  nation  was  torn  from  its  native  land  and  trans- 
planted to  the  opposite  coast,  where  it  received  settlements 
on  the  Gulf  of  Salernum.  In  B.C.  266,  Umbria  was  forced  to 
make  its  submission ;  and  in  the  year  following,  Volsinii,  the 
chief  of  the  Etruscan  towns,  was  besieged,  taken,  and  razed  to 
the  ground.  At  the  close  of  the  year  B.C.  265,  Rome  reigned 
supreme  over  the  length  and  breadth  of  Italy,  from  the  Macra 
to  Tarentum  and  Rhegfium. 

The  chief  means  by  which  Rome  established  and  secured  her 
power  was  her  system  of  colonies,  with  its  supplement,  her 
military  roads.  The  foundation  of  colonies  began,  if  we  may 
believe  the  Roman  historians,  under  the  kings.  At  any  rate, 
it  is  certain  that  early  in  the  struggle  between  the  combined 
Romans,  Latins,  and  Hernici  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Oscan 
nations  on  the  other,  the  plan  of  establishing  colonies,  as  gar- 
risons, in  towns  taken  from  the  enemy,  was  very  widely 
adopted.  Such  colonies  were  made  up,  in  equal  or  nearly  equal 
proportions,  of  citizens  of  the  three  nations,  who  together 
formed  the  burgher  or  Patrician  body  in  the  city  where  they 
took  up  their  abode,  the  previous  inhabitants  counting  only 
as  a  "  Plebs."  The  system,  thus  employed  by  Rome  in  con- 
junction with  her  allies,  was  afterwards  made  use  of  copiously 
in  the  conquests  which  she  effected  for  her  own  sole  advantage. 
As  Terminus  advanced,  either  colonies  of  Roman  citizens  {colo- 
nice  civiutn  Romanorum),  who  retained  all  their  civic  rights,  or 
"^  Latin  colonies  "  (colonice  Latinoc),  consisting  of  Romans  who 
by  becoming  colonists  lost  their  rights  of  voting  in  the  Roman 
"  comitia  "  and  of  aspiring  to  honors  {jus  sttffragii  ct  honorum), 
but  retained  the  rest  of  their  citizenship,  were  planted  far  and 
wide  over  Italy.    These  colonists,  being  Romans,  having  many 



Roman  rights,  and  being  planted  in  an  invidious  position 
among  aliens,  naturally  clung  to  the  mother-city,  and  were 
the  great  bulwarks  of  Roman  power  throughout  the  peninsula. 

Closely  connected  with  the  Roman  colonial  system  was  that 
of  the  military  roads.  The  genius  of  Appius  Claudius  Caecus 
first  conceived  the  idea  of  connecting  Rome  with  her  newly- 
annexed  dependency,  Campania,  by  a  solid  paved  road  of  ex- 
cellent construction  (B.C.  310  to  306).  This  road,  which  issued 
from  the  Porta  Capena  (Gate  of  Capua),  passed  through  Aricia, 
Velitrae,  Setia,  Tarracina,  Minturnae,  Sinuessa,  and  Casilinum 
to  Capua ;  whence  it  was  carried,  probably  as  early  as  B.C.  291, 
to  Venusia,  and  later  to  Brundusium.  Much  of  the  work  still 
remains,  and  attracts  the  admiration  of  travellers. 

The  mode  in  which  Rome,  having  attained  her  supremacy, 
administered  the  government  of  Italy,  was  exceedingly  com- 
plicated. It  is  impossible  in  a  work  like  the  present  to  do  more 
than  point  out  the  main  features  of  the  system,  and  distinguish, 
one  from  another,  the  principal  classes  into  which  the  popula- 
tion of  the  state  was  divided.  Broadly,  we  may  say  that  the 
Roman  Republic  bore  sway  in  Italy  over  a  host  of  minor  re- 
publics. Self-government  was  most  widely  spread.  Every 
colony  was  a  sort  of  independent  community,  electing  its  own 
officers  and  administering  its  own  affairs.  Every  foreign  city 
under  their  rule  was  recognized  by  the  Romans  as  a  separate 
state,  and  was  placed  on  a  certain  definite  footing  with  regard 
to  the  central  community.  The  most  highly  favored  were  the 
foederatce  civitates — states  that  had  submitted  to  Rome  upon 
terms  varying  of  course  in  different  cases,  but  in  all  implying 
the  management  of  their  own  affairs,  the  appointment  of  their 
own  governors,  and  the  administration  of  their  own  laws.  Next 
to  these  in  advantage  of  position  were  the  municipia,  foreign 
states  which  had  received  all  the  burdens  together  with  some 
or  all  of  the  rights  of  Roman  citizenship.  Last  of  all  came  the 
dcdititii,  natives  of  communities  which  had  surrendered  them- 
selves to  Rome  absolutely,  and  which  had  all  the  burdens  with- 
out any  of  the  rights  of  citizens.  Roman  law  was  administered 
in  these  communities  by  a  governor  (prcofectus)  appointed  by 

Rome  reserved  to  herself  three  principal  rights,  whereby 


she  regarded  her  sovereignty  as  sufficiently  guarded.  She 
alone  might  make  peace  or  declare  war;  she  alone  might 
receive  embassies  from  foreign  powers;  and  she  alone 
might  coin  money.  She  had  also  undoubtedly  the  right  of 
requiring  from  her  subject-allies  such  contingents  of  troops 
as  she  needed  in  any  war;  which  involved  a  further  right  of 
indirect  taxation,  since  the  contingents  were  armed  and  paid 
by  the  community  which  furnished  them.  She  did  not,  like 
Athens,  directly  tax  her  subject-allies ;  but  she  derived  never- 
theless an  important  revenue  from  them.  On  the  conquest  of 
a  state,  Rome  always  claimed  to  succeed  to  the  rights  of  the 
previously  existing  government ;  and,  as  each  Italian  state  had 
a  public  domain  of  some  kind  or  other,  Rome,  as  she  pushed 
her  conquests,  became  mistress  of  a  vast  amount  of  real  prop- 
erty of  various  kinds,  as  especially  mines,  forests,  quarries,  fish- 
eries, salt-works,  and  the  like.  Further,  generally,  when  a  state 
submitted  to  her  after  a  war,  she  required,  beyond  all  these 
sources  of  revenue,  the  cession  of  a  tract  of  arable  or  pasture 
land,  which  she  added  to  her  old  "  ager  publicus."  Thus  the 
domain  of  Rome  was  continually  increasing;  and  it  was  (at 
least  in  part)  to  collect  the  revenue  from  the  domain  through- 
out Italy  that,  in  B.C.  267,  the  four  "  Italian  quaestors  "  were 
appointed,  "  the  first  Roman  functionaries  to  whom  a  resi- 
dence and  a  district  out  of  Rome  were  assigned  by  law." 

The  constitutional  changes  in  Rome  itself  during  the  period 
under  consideration  were  not  very  numerous  or  important. 
They  consisted  mainly  in  the  carrying  out  to  their  logical  result 
of  the  Licinio-Sextian  enactments — in  the  complete  equaliza- 
tion, that  is,  of  the  two  Orders.  By  the  laws  of  Publilius  Philo, 
of  Ovinius,  and  of  the  Og^ilnii,  the  last  vestiges  of  Patrician 
ascendency  were  removed,  and  the  Plebeians  were  placed  in 
all  important  respects  on  a  complete  equality  with  the  Patri- 
cians. Admitted  practically  to  a  full  moiety  of  the  high  gov- 
ernmental offices,  they  acquired  by  degrees,  through  the  oper- 
ation of  the  Ovinian  law,  an  influence  fully  equal  to  that  of  the 
Patricians  in  the  Senate.  By  the  tribunate,  which  remained 
exclusively  theirs,  they  had  even  an  advantage  over  the  other 
Order.  The  strong-hold  of  the  exclusive  party,  which  last 
yielded  itself,  was,  naturally,  that  of  religious  privilege.     But 


when  the  Pontificate  and  the  Augurship  were  fairly  divided 
between  the  Orders,  the  struggle  between  the  "  houses  "  and 
the  commons  was  over,  and  there  was  nothing  left  for  the  latter 
to  desire. 

But  the  termination  of  the  internal  struggle  which  had  hith- 
erto occupied  the  commonwealth,  and  secured  it  against  the 
deadly  evil  of  political  stagnation,  was  not  complete  before  a 
new  agitation  manifested  itself,  an  agitation  of  a  far  more  dan- 
gerous character  than  that  which  was  now  just  coming  to  an 
end.  Hitherto  the  right  of  suffrage  at  Rome,  at  any  rate  in 
the  more  important  of  the  two  popular  assemblies — the  tribes 
{comitia  tribnta) — had  rested  upon  the  double  basis  of  free  birth 
and  the  possession  of  a  plot  of  freehold  land.  About  B.C.  312, 
the  class  which  these  qualifications  excluded  from  the  fran- 
chise began  to  exhibit  symptoms  of  discontent.  Appius  Clau- 
dius Caecus,  one  of  the  boldest  of  political  innovators,  perceiv- 
ing these  symptoms,  and  either  regarding  them  as  a  real  peril  to 
the  State  or  as  indicating  an  occasion  which  he  might  turn  to 
his  own  personal  advantage,  being  censor  in  the  year  above 
mentioned,  came  forward  as  the  champion  of  the  excluded 
classes,  and,  after  vainly  attempting  to  introduce  individuals 
belonging  to  them  into  the  Senate,  enrolled  the  entire  mass 
both  in  the  centuries  and  in  the  tribes.  Nor  was  this  all.  In- 
stead of  assigning  the  new  voters  to  the  city  tribes,  within 
whose  local  limits  they  for  the  most  part  dwelt,  Appius  spread 
them  through  all,  or  a  majority,  of  the  tribes,  and  thus  gave 
them  practically  an  absolute  control  over  the  elections.  Their 
power  was  soon  seen,  in  the  election  of  a  freedman,  Cn.  Fla- 
vins, to  the  curule  sedileship,  which  gave  him  a  seat  in  the 
Senate  for  the  remainder  of  his  life;  and  in  the  election  of 
tribunes  who  enabled  Appius  to  prolong  his  term  of  office  ille- 
gally to  the  close  of  the  fourth  year.  This  was  the  inaugura- 
tion of  a  real  ochlocracy,  a  government  in  which  the  prepon- 
derating weight  belonged  to  the  lowest  class  of  the  people. 
Evil  consequences  would  no  doubt  have  been  rapidly  devel- 
oped, had  not  the  work  of  Appius  been  to  a  great  extent  un- 
done— the  sting  extracted  from  his  measures — by  the  skill  and 
boldness  of  two  most  sagacious  censors.  When  Q.  Fabius 
Maximus  and  P.  Decius  Mus,  B.C.  304,  removed  all  who  were 


without  landed  qualification  and  all  the  poorer  freedmen  from 
the  country  tribes,  and  distributed  them  among  the  four  city 
tribes  only,  the  revolutionary  force  of  Ap.  Claudius's  proceed- 
ings was  annulled,  and  nothing  remained  but  a  very  harmless, 
and  almost  nominal  enfranchisement  of  the  lower  orders. 
When  the  "  factio  forensis  "  could  command  the  votes  of  four 
tribes  only  out  of  thirty-one,  or  ultimately  of  thirty-five,  it  was 
rendered  powerless  in  the  contitia  tribiUa.  In  the  centuries  it 
was  of  course  even  weaker,  since  there  wealth  had  a  vast  pre- 
ponderance over  mere  numbers. 

The  pressure  of  poverty  still  continued  to  be  felt  at  Rome  for 
many  years  after  the  Licinian,  and  even  after  the  Genucian 
legislation.  An  insurrection,  proceeding  to  the  length  of  a 
secession,  occurred  in  B.C.  287  in  consequence  of  a  wide- 
spread distress.  An  abolition  of  debts  was  found  to  be  once 
more  a  State  necessity,  and  was  submitted  to  with  a  view  to 
peace  and  the  contentation  of  the  poorer  classes.  But  the  tide 
of  military  success,  which  soon  afterwards  set  in,  put  a  stop 
for  a  long  term  of  years  to  this  ground  of  complaint  and  dis- 
turbance. The  numerous  and  large  colonies  which  were  con- 
tinually being  sent  out  from  B.C.  232  to  177,  were  an  effectual 
relief  to  the  proletariate,  and  put  an  end  for  the  time  to  any- 
thing like  extreme  poverty  among  Roman  citizens.  At  the 
same  time  the  farming  of  the  revenue  largely  increased  the 
wealth  of  the  more  opulent  classes.  It  is  not  till  about  B.C. 
133  that  we  find  the  questions  of  debt  and  of  the  relief  of  pov- 
erty once  more  brought  into  prominence  and  recognized  as 
matters  which  require  the  attention  of  statesmen. 


From  the  Commencement  of  the  First  War  with  Carthage  to 
the  Rise  of  the  Civil  Broils  under  the  Gracchi,  B.C.  264 
to  133.* 

In  the  Fourth  Period  of  Roman  History,  as  in  the  Third, 
and  even  more  decidedly,  the  interest  attaches  itself  to  the 

♦  Sources.  The  most  important  of  the  ancient  authorities  for  this 
period  is  Polybius,  the  earliest  writer  in  whom  we  see  fully  developed 


external  relations  of  the  people  rather  than  to  their  in- 
ternal condition.  The  interval  comprises  the  long  struggle 
with  Carthage,  the  Gallic  War  and  conquest  of  the  plain  of  the 
Po,  the  three  Macedonian  Wars,  the  war  with  Antiochus  of 
Syria,  the  conquest  of  Greece,  the  Numantine  War,  and  the 
reduction  of  most  of  the  Spanish  Peninsula.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  the  period  the  dominion  of  Rome  was  confined 
to  the  mere  peninsular  portion  of  Italy ;  at  its  close  she  bore 
sway  over  the  whole  of  Southern  Europe  from  the  shores  of  the 
Atlantic  to  the  straits  of  Constantinople,  over  the  chief  Medi- 
terranean islands,  and  over  a  portion  of  North  Africa ;  while, 
further,  her  influence  was  paramount  throughout  the  East, 
where  Pergamus  and  Egypt  were  her  dependents,  and  Syria 
existed  merely  by  her  sufferance.  In  B.C.  264,  she  had  just 
reached  a  position  entitling  her  to  count  among  the  "  Great 
Powers  "  of  the  world,  as  it  then  was ;  to  rank,  i.  e.,  with 
Carthage,  Macedonia,  and  Syria;  in  B.C.  134,  she  had  ab- 
sorbed two  of  these  "  Great  Powers,"  and  made  the  third  a  de- 
pendency. She  was  clearly  the  sole  "  Great  Power  "  left ;  or, 
if  there  was  a  second,  it  was  the  newly-formed  empire  beyond 
the  Euphrates — that  of  the  Parthians — which  rose  up  as  Syria 

the  true  spirit  of  historical  criticism.  If  the  great  work  of  this  author 
had  come  down  to  us  in  a  complete  form,  we  should  no  more  have 
needed  any  other  authority  for  the  period  treated  in  it,  than  we  need 
any  work,  besides  that  of  Thucydides,  for  the  history  of  the  Pelopon- 
nesian  War,  from  B.C.  431  to  411.  Unfortunately,  the  complete 
books  descend  no  lower  than  B.C.  216;  and  even  the  fragments  fail 
us  from  the  year  B.C.  146.  Consequently,  after  B.C.  216  we  have 
to  depend  very  much  upon  other  writers,  as  especially  Livy,  whose 
"  Second  Decade  "  covers  the  space  from  B.C.  218  to  166,  thus  taking 
up  the  history  almost  exactly  where  the  complete  books  of  Polybius 
break  off.  Next  to  Polybius  and  Livy  may  be  placed  Appian,  whose 
"Punica,"  "Bellum  Hannibalicum,"  and  "  Iberica"  belong  to  this  period 
and  occasionally  throw  important  light  upon  the  course  of  events.  The 
epitome  of  Florus  is  not  here  of  much  value.  The  biographer,  Plu- 
tarch, on  the  other  hand,  is  a  considerable  help,  his  "  Lives  "  of  Fabius 
Maximus,  P.  .(Emilius,  Marcellus,  M.  Cato,  and  Flamininus  falling, 
all  of  them,  within  this  brief  space  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  years. 
The  short  "  Life  of  Hannibal "  by  Corn.  Nepos  possesses  also  some 
interest;  and  occasional  aid  may  be  derived  from  Diodorus,  and 


declined,  and  which  ultimately  remained  the  only  counterpoise 
to  the  Roman  state  through  the  whole  period  of  its  greatness. 

The  circumstances  of  the  struggle  with  Pyrrhus,  and  the 
Southern  Italians,  had  forced  Rome  to  become  to  some  extent 
a  maritime  power.  As  she  gradually  mastered  Italy,  it  became 
necessary  to  protect  her  coasts,  exposed  as  they  were  to  attack 
from  Epirus,  from  Sicily,  from  Carthage,  even  from  Greece,  as 
experience  showed.  Accordingly,  a  fleet  began  to  be  formed 
as  early  as  B.C.  338,  which  received  constant  additions,  and  had 
by  the  year  B.C.  267  acquired  such  importance  that  four 
"  quaestors  of  the  fleet  "  {qucostores  classki)  were  then  appointed, 
and  stationed  at  different  ports  of  Italy,  with  the  special  object 
of  guarding  the  coasts  and  keeping  the  marine  in  an  efficient 
condition.  But  this  new  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  gjeat 
Italian  state  could  not  fail  to  provoke  the  jealousy  of  the  chief 
maritime  power  of  the  Western  Mediterranean,  Carthage, 
whose  policy  it  had  always  been  to  oppose  the  establishment  of 
any  naval  rival  in  the  waters  which  she  regarded  as  her  own. 
Thus,  unfriendly  feelings,  arising  out  of  a  consciousness  of 
clashing  interests,  had  for  some  time  been  growing  up  between 
Carthage  and  Rome.  Temporarily  suspended  during  the 
height  of  the  Pyrrhic  War,  when  a  common  danger  for  a  while 
drew  the  two  states  together,  they  burst  out  at  its  close  in 
greater  force  than  ever ;  and  nothing  was  needed  but  a  decent 
pretext,  in  order  that  the  two  lukewarm  allies  should  become 
open  and  avowed  enemies. 

The  pretext  was  not  long  wanting.  The  Mamertines,  a 
body  of  Campanian  mercenaries  who  had  seized  Messana,  be- 
ing threatened  with  destruction  by  the  combined  Carthagin- 
ians and  Syracusans,  applied  for  help  to  Rome,  and  were 
readily  received  into  her  alliance.  Rome  invaded  Sicily,  and 
by  an  act  of  treachery  made  herself  mistress  of  the  disputed 
post.  War  with  Carthage  necessarily  followed,  a  war  for  the 
possession  of  Sicily,  and  for  maritime  supremacy  in  the  Medi- 
terranean. The  most  remarkable  feature  of  the  war  was  the 
rapid  development  of  the  Roman  naval  power  during  its  course 
— a  development  which  is  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  the 
world.  With  few  and  insignificant  exceptions,  the  Romans 
were  landsmen  till  B.C.  262.     In  that  year  they  beg^n  to  form  a 



powerful  fleet.  Only  two  years  later,  B.C.  260,  they  com- 
pletely defeated,  under  Duilius,  the  whole  naval  force  of  the 
Carthaginians ;  and  the  supremacy  thus  acquired  they  succeed- 
ed in  maintaining  by  the  later  victories  of  Regulus  and  Luta- 
tius.  Their  victories  by  sea  emboldened  them  to  send  an  army 
across  to  Africa,  and  to  attack  their  enemy  in  his  own  country. 
Success  at  first  attended  the  efforts  of  Regulus ;  but  after  a  lit- 
tle while  he  was  involved  in  difficulties,  and  his  entire  army  was 
either  slain  or  captured.  But  notwithstanding  this  and  numer- 
ous other  disasters,  the  indomitable  spirit  of  the  Romans  pre- 
vailed. After  twenty-three  years  of  perpetual  warfare, 
Carthage  felt  herself  exhausted,  and  sued  for  peace.  The 
terms  which  she  obtained  required  her  to  evacuate  Sicily  and 
the  adjacent  islands,  to  pay  to  Rome  a  war  contribution  of  2200 
talents,  to  acknoAvledge  the  independence  of  Hiero,  king  of 
Syracuse,  and  bind  herself  not  to  make  war  on  him  or  his  allies. 

The  great  importance  of  this  war  was,  that  it  forced  Rome  to 
become  a  first-rate  naval  power.  Though  the  Romans  did  not 
during  its  course  obtain  the  complete  mastery  of  the  sea,  they 
showed  themselves  fully  a  match  for  the  Carthaginians  on  the 
element  of  which  they  had  scarcely  any  previous  experience. 
Their  land  force  being  much  superior  to  that  of  Carthage,  and 
their  resources  not  greatly  inferior,  it  became  tolerably  ap- 
parent that  success  would  ultimately  rest  with  them.  Their 
chief  deficiency  was  in  generalship,  wherein  their  commanders 
were  decidedly  surpassed,  not  only  by  the  Carthaginian  patriot 
Hamilcar,  but  even  the  mercenary  Xanthippus,  Here  the  Ro- 
man system  was  principally  to  blame,  whereby  the  command- 
ers were  changed  annually,  and  the  same  person  was  expected 
to  be  able  to  command  equally  well  both  by  land  and  by  sea. 
Carthage  continued  her  commanders  in  office,  and  had  sep- 
arate ones  for  the  land  and  the  sea  service.  Even  Carthage, 
however,  was  unwise  enough  to  deprive  herself  of  the  services 
of  many  an  experienced  captain  by  the  barbarous  practice  of 
putting  to  death  any  general  or  admiral  who  experienced  a  re- 

An  interval  of  twenty-three  years  separated  the  First  from 
the  Second  Punic  War.  It  was  employed  by  both  sides  in  en- 
ergetic efforts  to  consolidate  and  extend  their  power.     Rome, 


in  B.C.  238,  taking  advantage  of  the  position  in  which  Carthage 
was  placed  by  the  revoh  of  her  mercenaries,  made  herself  mis- 
tress of  the  island  of  Sardinia,  and  when,  upon  the  submission 
of  the  mercenaries,  Carthage  required  its  restoration,  played 
the  part  of  the  wolf  in  the  fable,  declared  herself  injured  by  her 
victim,  and  threatened  a  renewal  of  the  war.  Exhausted 
Carthage  had  to  purchase  her  forbearance  by  the  cession  of  the 
island,  and  the  payment  of  a  fine  amounting  to  1200  talents, 
B.C.  237.  Rome  then  proceeded  to  annex  Corsica ;  and  soon 
afterwards  (B.C.  227)  she  laid  the  foundation  of  her  provincial 
system  by  the  establishment  of  her  first  "  Proconsuls,"  one  to 
administer  her  possessions  in  Sicily,  the  other  to  govern  Sar- 
dinia and  Corsica. 

About  the  same  time  that  she  seized  Sardinia,  Rome  was  en- 
gaged in  a  war  with  the  Boii  (Gauls)  and  Ligures  in  North 
Italy,  in  which  the  Boii  are  said  to  have  been  the  aggressors. 
Unsuccessful  in  their  attempts  during  the  campaigns  of  B.C. 
238  and  237,  these  barbarians,  in  B.C.  236,  invited  the  aid  of 
their  kindred  tribes  from  beyond  the  Alps ;  but  the  allies  after 
a  little  while  fell  out,  and  the  Boii  and  Ligures  were  glad  to  buy 
peace  of  Rome  by  the  cession  of  some  of  their  lands. 

Rome,  soon  afterwards,  showed  herself  for  the  first  time  on 
the  eastern  coast  of  the  Adriatic,  and  took  part  in  the  affairs  of 
Greece.  The  decay  of  Grecian  power  had  allowed  the  piratical 
dispositions  of  the  Illyrians  to  have  free  course ;  and  the  com- 
merce of  the  Adriatic,  the  coasts  of  Epirus  and  Corcyra,  and 
perhaps  even  that  of  Italy  to  some  extent,  suffered  from  the 
constant  attacks  of  Illyrian  cruisers.  Entreated  to  protect 
them  by  the  unhappy  Greek  cities,  the  Romans,  in  B.C.  230, 
sent  an  embassy  to  Scodra,  to  require  the  cessation  of  the 
piracies.  Their  ambassadors  were  murdered  ;  and  a  war  neces- 
sarily followed.  Rome,  in  B.C.  229,  with  a  fleet  of  200  ships, 
cleared  the  Adriatic,  made  the  Illyrians  of  Scodra  tributary, 
established  Demetrius  of  Pharos  as  dependent  dynast  over  the 
coasts  and  islands  of  Dalmatia,  and  accepted  the  protectorate 
of  the  Greeks  of  Apollonia,  Epidamnus,  and  Corcyra.  In  re- 
turn the  Greeks  acknowledged  the  Romans  as  their  kin,  and 
admitted  them  to  participation  in  the  Isthmian  games  and  the 
Eleusinian  mysteries.    Thus  Rome  obtained  a  hold  upon  the 



opposite  side  of  the  Adriatic,  and  a  right  of  interference  in  the 
affairs  of  Greece. 

A  still  more  important  war  soon  followed.  Rome,  before 
engaging  in  any  further  enterprises  beyond  the  limits  of  Italy, 
was  anxious  to  extend  her  dominion  to  its  natural  boundary 
upon  the  north,  the  great  chain  of  the  Alps  which  shuts  off 
Italy  from  the  rest  of  Europe.  With  this  view,  she  proceeded, 
about  B.C.  232,  to  make  large  assignments  of  land,  and  plant 
new  and  important  colonies,  in  the  territory  of  the  Senones, 
thus  augmenting  her  strength  towards  the  north  and  prepar- 
ing for  a  great  contest  with  the  Gauls.  These  last,  finding 
themselves  threatened,  at  once  flew  to  arms.  Obtaining  aid 
from  their  kindred  tribes  in  and  beyond  the  Alps,  they  crossed 
the  Apennines  in  B.C.  225,  and  spread  themselves  far  and  wide 
over  Etruria,  advancing  as  far  as  Clusium,  and  threatening 
Rome  as  in  the  days  of  Brennus.  Three  armies  took  the  field 
against  them,  and  though  one,  composed  of  Etruscans,  was 
completely  defeated,  the  two  others,  combining  their  attack, 
gained  a  great  victory  over  the  invaders  near  Telamon,  and 
forced  them  to  evacuate  Etruria.  Rome  then  carried  the  war 
into  the  plain  of  the  Po.  Having  allied  herself  with  the  Veneti, 
and  even  with  the  Gallic  tribe  adjoining  them,  the  Cenomani, 
she  was  able  in  a  little  time  to  reduce  the  whole  tract  to  sub- 
jection. The  Boii  and  Lingones  submitted  in  B.C.  224 ;  the 
Anari  in  B.C.  223 ;  the  Insubres  were  conquered  after  a  fierce 
struggle,  which  occupied  the  years  B.C.  223  and  222.  Medio- 
lanum  and  Comum,  the  last  towns  which  held  out,  submitted 
in  the  last-named  year,  and  Roman  dominion  was  at  length 
extended  to  the  great  barrier  of  the  Alps. 

These  conquests  were  scarcely  effected  when  fresh  troubles 
broke  out  in  Illyria.  Demetrius  of  Pharos,  dissatisfied  with 
the  position  accorded  him  by  the  Romans,  declared  himself 
independent,  attacked  the  Roman  allies,  and  encouraged  the 
Illyrians  to  resume  the  practice  of  piracy.  Allied  with  An- 
tigonus  Doson,  he  thought  himself  strong  enough  to  defy  the 
Roman  power.  But  Antigonus  dying,  B.C.  220,  and  Philip, 
his  successor,  being  a  mere  boy,  a  Roman  army,  in  B.C.  219, 
chastised  Demetrius,  destroyed  his  capital,  and  drove  him  from 
his  kingdom. 



It  was  ill-judged  in  Rome  to  allow  this  petty  quarrel  to  draw 
her  attention  to  the  East,  when  in  the  West  an  enemy  had 
arisen,  against  whom  her  utmost  efforts  were  now  needed. 
From  the  moment  that  Carthage  was  not  only  robbed  of  Sar- 
dinia, but  forced  to  pay  a  fine  for  having  ventured  to  remon- 
strate against  the  wrong  done  her,  the  determination  to  resume 
the  struggle  with  Rome  at  the  first  convenient  opportunity  be- 
came a  fixed  national  sentiment.  There  was  indeed  a  peace 
party  in  the  Punic  community ;  but  it  had  little  weight  or  force. 
The  advocates  of  war,  who  had  found  their  fitting  leaders  in 
the  warriors  of  the  Barcine  family — Hamilcar,  his  sons,  and 
son-in-law — were  all-powerful  in  the  government;  and  under 
them  it  became  and  remained  the  one  sole  object  of  Carthage 
to  bring  herself  into  a  position  in  which  she  could  hope  to  re- 
new her  contest  with  her  hated  antagonist  on  such  terms  as 
might  promise  her  a  fair  prospect  of  success.  No  sooner  was 
the  revolt  of  the  mercenaries  put  down  (B.C.  237)  by  the  judi- 
cious efforts  of  Hamilcar  Barca,  than  the  project  was  formed 
of  obtaining  in  Spain  a  compensation,  and  more  than  a  com- 
pensation, for  all  that  had  been  lost  in  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and  the 
lesser  islands.  Hamilcar,  in  the  last  nine  years  of  his  life,  B.C. 
236  to  228,  established  the  Carthaginian  power  over  the  whole 
of  Southern  and  South-eastern  Spain,  the  fairest  portion  of  the 
peninsula.  His  work  was  carried  on  and  completed  in  the 
course  of  the  next  eight  years,  B.C.  227  to  220,  by  his  son-in- 
law,  Hasdrubal.  Andalusia,  Murcia,  and  Valencia  were  occu- 
pied. A  warlike  population,  Iberic  and  Celtic,  was  reduced 
and  trained  to  arms  under  Carthaginian  officers.  Towns  were 
built ;  trade  prospered ;  agriculture  flourished.  Above  all,  the 
rich  silver-mines  near  Carthagena  (Carthago  Nova)  were  dis- 
covered and  skilfully  worked ;  Spain  more  than  paid  her  ex- 
penses ;  and  the  home-treasury  was  amply  provided  with  those 
"  sinews  of  war  "  without  which  a  sustained  military  effort  is 

The  indifference  with  which  Rome  saw  this  extension  of  the 
Carthaginian  power  is  very  surprising.  She  did  indeed  make 
alliance  with  the  semi-Greek  communities  of  Saguntum 
(Zacynthus)  and  Emporiae  about  B.C.  226,  and  at  the  same  time 
obtained  a  promise  from  Hasdrubal  that  he  would  not  push  his 



conquests  beyond  the  Ebro ;  but  otherwise  she  appeared  un- 
observant or  careless  of  her  rival's  acquisitions.  Probably  she 
thought  that  the  designs  of  Carthage  were  in  the  main  com- 
mercial, and  regarded  an  invasion  of  Italy  from  the  side  of 
Spain  as  simply  an  impossibility.  Perhaps  she  thought  her 
enemy's  strength  so  much  reduced,  and  her  own  so  much  in- 
creased, as  to  render  it  inconceivable  that  the  struggle  should 
ever  be  renewed,  unless  she  chose  at  her  own  time  to  force  a 
contest.  As  she  remained  mistress  of  the  sea,  and  Carthage 
did  not  even  make  any  effort  to  dispute  her  maritime  su- 
premacy, it  seemed  difficult  for  her  rival  to  attack  her  in  any 
quarter,  while  it  was  easy  for  her  to  carry  the  war  into  any  por- 
tion of  the  Carthaginian  territory. 

But  Hannibal,  sworn  from  his  boyhood  to  eternal  hatred  of 
Rome,  had  determined,  as  soon  as  he  succeeded  to  the  com- 
mand (B.C.  220),  on  the  mode  and  route  by  which  he  would 
seek  to  give  vent  to  his  enmity,  to  save  his  own  nation  and  at 
the  same  time  destroy  her  foe.  Fully  appreciating  the  weak- 
ness of  Carthage  for  defence,  it  was  his  scheme  to  carry  the  war 
without  a  moment's  unnecessary  delay  into  the  enemy's  coun- 
try, to  give  the  Romans  ample  employment  there,  and  see  if 
he  could  not  exhaust  their  resources  and  shatter  their  con- 
federacy. The  land  route  from  Spain  to  Italy  had  for  him  no 
terrors.  He  could  count  on  the  good  dispositions  of  most  of 
the  Celtic  tribes,  who  looked  on  him  as  the  destined  deliverer 
of  Cisalpine  Gaul  from  the  iron  gripe  of  Rome.  He  probably 
knew  but  little  of  the  dangers  and  difficulties  of  crossing  the 
Alps ;  but  he  was  well  aware  that  they  had  been  often  crossed 
by  the  Gauls,  and  that  he  would  find  in  the  Alpine  valleys  an 
ample  supply  of  friendly  and  experienced  guides.  Arrived  in 
Cisalpine  Gaul,  he  would  have  the  whole  population  with  him, 
and  he  would  be  able,  after  due  consideration,  to  determine  on 
his  further  course.  With  the  veteran  army  which  he  brought 
from  Spain,  and  with  his  own  strategic  ability,  he  trusted  to 
defeat  any  force  that  Rome  could  bring  into  the  field  against 
him.  For  ultimate  success  he  depended  on  his  power  of  loos- 
ening the  ties  which  bound  the  Italic  confederacy  together,  of 
raising  up  enemies  to  Rome  in  Italy  itself,  and  at  the  same  time 
of  maintaining  his  army  in  such  efficiency  that  it  might  be  dis- 


tinctly  recogfnized  as  master  of  the  open  field,  incapable  of  be- 
ing resisted  unless  behind  walls,  or  by  defensive  guerilla  war- 
fare. With  these  views  and  objects,  Hannibal,  in  B.C.  219, 
commenced  the  Second  Punic  War  by  laying  siege  to  Sag^n- 

The  issue  of  the  Second  Punic  War  was  determined  by  the 
dauntless  resolution  and  the  internal  vigor  of  Rome.  She  had 
opposed  to  her  the  most  consummate  general  of  antiquity ;  a 
state  as  populous  and  richer  in  resources  than  her  own ;  a  vet- 
eran army ;  a  possible  combination  of  various  powerful  allies ; 
above  all,  an  amount  of  disaffection  among  her  own  subjects, 
the  extent  of  which  could  not  be  estimated  beforehand,  but 
which  was  at  any  rate  sure  to  be  considerable.  Three  battles 
showed  that  Hannibal  was  irresistible  in  the  field,  and  taught 
the  Romans  to  avoid  general  engagements.  The  third  was 
followed  by  a  wide-spread  defection  of  the  Roman  subject-al- 
lies— all  Italy  from  Samnium  and  Campania  southward  passed 
over  to  the  side  of  Hannibal.  But  the  rest  of  the  federation 
stood  firm.  Not  a  Latin  deserted  to  the  enemy.  Central  Italy 
from  sea  to  sea  held  to  Rome.  She  had  the  resources  of  Etru- 
ria,  Umbria,  Picenum,  Sabina,  Latium,  to  draw  upon,  besides 
her  own.  By  immense  efforts,  including  the  contraction  of  a 
large  National  Debt,  she  contrived  to  maintain  her  ground, 
and  gradually  to  reduce  Hannibal  to  the  defensive.  The  alli- 
ances, by  which  Hannibal  sought  to  better  his  position,  with 
Syracuse,  B.C.  215,  and  with  Philip  of  Macedon,  B.C.  216,  did 
him  scant  service,  Rome  in  each  case  meeting  the  new  enemy 
on  his  own  ground,  and  there  keeping  him  fully  employed. 
The  hopes  of  a  successful  issue  to  Carthage  then  rested  upon 
the  junction  of  the  second  army  of  Spain,  under  Hasdrubal, 
with  the  reduced  force  of  Hannibal  in  Italy,  a  junction  frus- 
trated by  the  battle  of  the  Metaurus,  which  was  thus  the  turn- 
ing-point of  the  war.  After  this  reverse,  the  transfer  of  the  war 
into  Africa  was  a  matter  of  course ;  and  this  transfer  rendered 
necessary  the  recall  of  Hannibal  from  Italy  and  the  relinquish- 
ment of  all  the  great  hopes  which  his  glorious  enterprise  had 
excited.  There  remained  just  a  possibility  that  in  a  last 
pitched  battle  on  his  native  soil,  Hannibal's  genius  might  re- 
establish the  superiority  of  the  Carthaginian  arms.     But  the 


battle  of  Zama  removed  this  final  chance.  Hannibal  met  in 
Scipio  Africanus  a  general,  not  indeed  his  equal,  but  far  su- 
perior to  any  of  those  with  whom  he  had  been  previously  en- 
gaged ;  and,  his  troops  being  mostly  of  inferior  quality,  he  suf- 
fered, through  no  fault  of  his  own,  the  great  defeat  which 
rendered  further  resistance  impossible.  Carthage,  after  Zama, 
became  a  dependent  Roman  ally. 

The  gains  of  Rome  by  the  Second  Punic  War  were,  in  the 
first  place,  the  complete  removal  of  Carthage  from  the  position 
of  a  counterpoise  and  rival  to  that  of  a  small  dependent  com- 
munity, powerless  for  good  or  evil;  secondly,  the  addition 
to  the  Roman  land  dominion  of  the  greater  part  of  Spain,  which 
was  formed  into  two  provinces,  Citerior  and  Ulterior ;  thirdly, 
the  absorption  of  the  previously  independent  state  of  Syracuse 
into  the  Roman  province  of  Sicily ;  fourthly,  the  setting  up  of 
a  Roman  protectorate  over  the  native  African  tribes ;  and  fifth- 
ly, the  full  and  complete  establishment  of  Roman  maritime 
supremacy  over  the  whole  of  the  Western  Mediterranean.  The 
war  further  tended  to  the  greater  consolidation  of  the  Roman 
power  in  Italy.  It  crushed  the  last  reasonable  hopes  of  the 
Ligurians  and  Gauls  in  the  north.  It  riveted  their  fetters  more 
firmly  than  ever  on  the  non-Latin  races  of  the  centre  and  the 
south,  the  Umbrians,  Etruscans,  Sabines,  Picentians,  Apulians, 
Bruttians.  Throughout  Italy  large  tracts  of  land  were  confis- 
cated by  the  sovereign  state;  and  fresh  colonies  of  Romans 
and  Latins  were  sent  out.  In  Campania  and  the  southern 
Picenum,  the  whole  soil  was  declared  forfeit.  The  repulse  of 
Hannibal  involved  a  second  subjugation  of  Italy,  more  com- 
plete and  more  harsh  than  the  first.  Everywhere,  except  in 
Latium,  the  native  races  were  depressed,  and  a  Latin  dominion 
was  established  over  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land. 

Another  result  of  the  Hannibalic  War,  which  completed  the 
subjugation  of  the  Western  Mediterranean  basin,  was  to  hasten 
the  collision  between  the  aggressive  Republic  and  the  East, 
which  had  long  been  evidently  impending.  Already,  as  early 
as  B.C.  273,  Rome  had  entered  into  friendly  relations  with 
Ecn/pt,  and  even  before  this  she  had  made  a  commercial 
treaty  with  Rhodes.  About  B.C.  245,  she  had  offered  to 
King  Ptolemy  Euergetes  a  contingent  for  his  Syrian  War; 


and  soon  afterwards  she  interceded  with  Seleucus  CalHnicus 
on  behalf  of  the  Ilians,  her  "  kindred."  Her  wars  with  the 
Illyrian  pirates,  B.C.  229  to  219,  had  brought  her  into  con- 
tact with  the  states  of  Greece,  more  particularly  with  the  .(Eto- 
lians ;  and  finally,  the  alliance  of  Philip,  king  of  Macedon,  with 
Hannibal,  had  forced  her  to  send  a  fleet  and  army  across  the 
Adriatic,  and  had  closely  connected  her  with  Elis,  with 
Sparta,  and  even  with  the  Asiatic  kingdom  of  Pergamus. 
Circumstances  had  thus  drawn  her  on,  without  any  distinctly 
ambitious  designs  on  her  part,  to  an  interference  in  the 
affairs  of  the  East — an  interference  which,  in  the  existing  con- 
dition of  the  Oriental  world,  could  not  but  have  the  most  mo- 
mentous consequences.  For  throughout  the  East,  since  the 
time  of  Alexander,  all  things  had  tended  to  corruption  and  de- 
cay. In  Greece,  the  spirit  of  patriotism,  feebly  kept  alive  in  the 
hearts  of  a  select  few,  such  as  Aratus  and  PhilopcEmen,  was 
on  the  point  of  expiring.  Intestine  division  made  the  very 
name  of  Hellas  a  mockery,  and  pointed  her  out  as  a  ready  prey 
to  any  invader.  In  Macedonia  luxury  had  made  vast  strides ; 
military  discipline  and  training  had  been  neglected ;  loyalty 
had  altogether  ceased  to  exist ;  little  remained  but  the  inheri- 
tance of  a  great  name  and  of  a  system  of  tactics  which  was  of 
small  value,  except  under  the  animating  influen'-e  of  a  good 
general.  The  condition  of  the  other  Alexandrine  monarchies 
was  even  worse.  In  Syria  and  in  Egypt,  while  the  barbarian 
element  had  been  raised  but  slightly  above  its  natural  level 
by  Hellenic  influence,  the  Hellenic  had  suffered  greatly  by  its 
contact  with  lower  types  of  humanity.  The  royal  races,  Se- 
leucids  and  Ptolemies,  were  effete  and  degenerate ;  the  armed 
force  that  they  could  bring  into  the  field  might  be  numerous, 
but  it  was  contemptible ;  and  a  general  of  even  moderate  abil- 
ities was  a  rarity.  It  was  only  among  the  purely  Asiatic  mon- 
archies of  the  more  remote  East  that  any  rival,  really  capable 
of  coping  with  Rome,  was  now  likely  to  show  itself.  The 
Macedonian  system  had  lived  out  its  day,  and  was  ready  to  give 
place  to  the  young,  vigorous,  and  boldly  aggressive  power 
which  had  arisen  in  the  West. 

The  conclusion  of  peace  with  Carthage  was  followed  rapidly 
by  an  attack  on  Macedonia,  for  which  the  conduct  of  Philip 



had  furnished  only  too  many  pretexts.  Philip  had  probably 
lent  aid  to  Carthage  in  her  final  struggle:  he  had  certainly 
without  any  provocation  commenced  an  aggressive  war  against 
Rome's  ancient  ally,  Egypt,  and  he  had  plunged  also  into 
hostilities  with  Attains  and  the  Rhodians,  both  of  whom  were 
among  the  friends  of  Rome,  the  former  being  protected  by  a 
treaty.  Rome  was  bound  in  honor  to  aid  her  allies;  and  no 
blame  can  attach  to  her  for  commencing  the  Second  Mace- 
donian War  in  B.C.  200,  and  despatching  her  troops  across 
the  Adriatic.  Her  conduct  of  the  war  was  at  first  altogether 
mediocre;  but  from  the  time  that  T.  Quinctius  Flamininus 
took  the  command  (B.C.  198)  it  was  simply  admirable,  and 
deserved  the  success  which  attended  it.  The  proclamation  of 
general  liberty  to  the  Grecian  states,  while  it  could  not  fail  of 
being  popular,  and  was  thus  excellently  adapted  to  deprive 
Philip  of  his  Hellenic  allies,  and  to  rally  to  the  Roman  cause 
the  whole  power  of  Hellas,  involved  no  danger  to  Roman  in- 
terests, which  were  perfectly  safe  under  a  system  that  estab- 
lished universal  disunion.  The  gift  of  liberty  to  the  Greeks  by 
Rome  in  B.C.  198,  is  parallel  to  the  similar  gift  of  universal 
autonomy  to  the  same  people  by  Sparta  and  Persia  in  B.C.  387 
at  the  "  Peace  of  Antalcidas."  On  both  occasions,  the  idda 
under  which  the  freedom  was  conceded  was  that  expressed  by 
the  maxim  "  Divide  et  impera."  The  idea  was  not  indeed  now 
carried  out  to  an  extreme  length.  There  was  no  dissolution 
of  the  leagues  of  Achsea,  ^tolia,  or  Boeotia.  These  leagues 
were  in  fact  too  small  to  be  formidable  to  such  a  power  as 
Rome.  And  as  they  had  embraced  the  Roman  side  during 
the  continuance  of  the  war,  their  dissolution  could  scarcely 
be  insisted  on.  Thessaly  however  was,  even  at  this  time,  in 
pursuance  of  the  policy  of  separation,  split  up  into  four  govern- 

The  battle  of  Cynoscephalae,  by  which  the  Second  Macedo- 
nian War  was  terminated,  deserves  a  place  among  the  "  Deci- 
sive Battles  of  the  World."  The  relative  strength  of  the  "  le- 
gion "  and  the  "  phalanx  "  was  then  for  the  first  time  tried 
upon  a  grand  scale ;  and  the  superiority  of  the  "  legion  "  was 
asserted.  No  doubt,  man  for  man,  the  Roman  soldiers  were 
better  than  the  Macedonian ;   but  it  was  not  this  superiority 


which  gained  the  day.  The  phalanx,  as  an  organization,  was 
clumsy  and  unwieldy;  the  legion  was  light,  elastic,  adapted 
to  every  variety  of  circumstances.  The  strength  and  weakness 
of  the  phalanx  were  never  better  shown  than  at  Cynoscephalae ; 
and  its  weakness — its  inability  to  form  quickly,  to  maintain  its 
order  on  uneven  ground,  or  to  change  front — lost  the  battle. 
The  loss  was  complete,  and  irremediable.  Macedonia  was 
vanquished,  and  Rome  became  thenceforth  the  arbitress  of  the 

While  her  arms  were  thus  triumphant  in  the  East,  Rome 
was  also  gaining  additional  strength  in  the  West.  In  the  very 
year  of  the  conclusion  of  peace  with  Carthage,  B.C.  201,  she 
recommenced  hostilities  in  the  plain  of  the  Po,  where  the  Gauls 
had  ever  since  the  invasion  of  Hannibal  defied  the  Roman 
authority  and  maintained  their  independence.  It  was  neces- 
sary to  reconquer  this  important  tract.  Accordingly,  from 
B.C.  201  to  191,  the  Romans  were  engaged  in  a  prolonged 
Gallic  War  in  this  district,  in  which,  though  ultimately  success- 
ful, they  suffered  many  reverses.  Their  garrisons  at  Placentia 
and  Cremona  were  completely  destroyed  and  swept  away. 
More  than  one  pitched  battle  was  lost.  It  was  only  by  ener- 
getic and  repeated  efforts,  and  by  skilfully  fomenting  the  di- 
visions among  the  tribes,  that  Rome  once  more  established 
her  dominion  over  this  fair  and  fertile  region,  forcing  the  Gauls 
to  become  her  reluctant  subjects. 

The  conquest  of  Gallia  Cisalpina  was  followed  by  a  fresh 
arrangement  of  the  territory.  The  line  of  the  Po  was  taken 
as  that  which  should  bound  the  strictly  Roman  possessions, 
and  while  "  Gallia  Transpadana  "  was  relinquished  to  the  na- 
tive tribes,  with  the  exception  of  certain  strategic  points,  such 
as  Cremona  and  Aquileia,  "  Gallia  Cispadana  "  was  incorpo- 
rated absolutely  into  Italy.  The  colonies  of  Placentia  and  Cre- 
mona were  re-established  and  reorganized.  New  foundations 
were  made  at  Bononia  (Bologna),  Mutina  (Modena),  and 
Parma  in  the  Boian  country.  The  iCmilian  Way  was  carried 
on  (B.C.  187)  from  Ariminum  to  Placentia.  The  Boians  and 
Lingones  were  rapidly  and  successfully  Latinized.  Beyond 
the  Po,  the  Gallic  communities,  though  allowed  to  retain  their 
existence  and  their  native  governments,  and  even  excused  from 



the  payment  of  any  tribute  to  their  conquerors,  were  regarded 
as  dependent  upon  Rome,  and  were  especially  required  to  check 
the  incursions  of  the  Alpine  or  Transalpine  Celts,  and  to  allow 
no  fresh  immigrants  to  settle  on  the  southern  side  of  the  moun- 

Meanwhile,  in  the  East,  the  defeat  of  Philip,  the  withdrawal 
of  the  Romans,  and  the  restoration  of  the  Greeks  to  freedom, 
had  been  far  from  producing  tranquillity.  The  yEtolian  robber- 
community  was  dissatisfied  with  the  awards  of  Flamininus, 
and  hoped,  in  the  scramble  that  might  follow  a  new  war,  to  gain 
an  increase  of  territory.  Antiochus  of  Syria  was  encouraged 
by  the  weakness  of  Macedon  to  extend  his  dominions  in  Asia 
Minor,  and  even  to  effect  a  lodgment  in  Europe,  proceedings 
which  Rome  could  scarcely  look  upon  with  indifference.  War 
broke  out  in  Greece  in  the  very  year  that  Flamininus  quitted 
it,  B.C.  194,  by  the  intrigues  of  the  .^Etolians,  who  were  bent 
on  creating  a  disturbance.  At  the  same  time,  Antiochus 
showed  more  and  more  that  he  did  not  fear  to  provoke  the 
Romans,  and  was  quite  willing  to  measure  his  strength  against 
theirs,  if  occasion  offered.  In  B.C.  195  he  received  Hannibal 
at  his  court  with  special  honors ;  and  soon  afterwards  he  en- 
tered into  negotiations  which  had  it  for  their  object  to  unite 
Macedonia,  Syria,  and  Carthage  against  the  common  foe.  In 
B.C.  194  or  193  he  contracted  an  alliance  with  the  yEtolians  ; 
and  finally,  in  B.C.  192,  he  proceeded  with  a  force  of  10,500 
men  from  Asia  into  Greece. 

This  movement  of  Antiochus  had  been  foreseen  by  the 
Romans,  who  about  the  same  time  landed  on  the  coast  of 
Epirus  with  a  force  of  25,000  men.  War  was  thus,  practically, 
declared  on  both  sides.  The  struggle  was,  directly  and  imme- 
diately, for  the  protectorate  of  Greece;  indirectly  and  pros- 
pectively, for  political  ascendency.  Antiochus  "  the  Great,"  as 
he  was  called,  the  master  of  all  Asia  from  the  valley  of  the  In- 
dus to  the  iEgean,  thought  himself  quite  competent  to  meet  and 
defeat  the  upstart  power  which  had  lately  ventured  to  inter- 
meddle in  the  affairs  of  the  "  Successors  of  Alexander,"  Nar- 
row-minded and  ignorant,  he  despised  his  adversary,  and  took 
the  field  with  a  force  absurdly  small,  which  he  could  without 
difficulty  have  quadrupled.    The  natural  result  followed.  Rome 


easily  defeated  him  in  a  pitched  battle,  drove  him  across  the 
sea,  and  following  him  rapidly  into  his  own  country,  shattered 
his  power,  and  established  her  own  prestige  in  Asia,  by  the 
great  victory  of  Magnesia,  which  placed  the  Syrian  empire  at 
her  mercy.  Most  fortunate  was  it  for  Rome  that  the  sceptre 
of  Syria  was  at  this  time  wielded  by  so  weak  a  monarch.  Had 
the  occupant  of  the  Seleucid  throne  possessed  moderate  ca- 
pacity ;  had  he  made  a  proper  use  of  his  opportunities ;  had 
he  g^ven  the  genius  of  Hannibal,  which  was  placed  at  his  dis- 
posal, full  scope ;  had  he,  by  a  frank  and  generous  policy,  at- 
tached Philip  of  Macedon  to  his  side,  the  ambitious  Republic 
might  have  been  checked  in  mid-career,  and  have  suflFered  a 
repulse  from  which  there  would  have  been  no  recovery  for 

The  "  moderation  "  of  Rome  after  the  battle  of  Magnesia 
has  been  admired  by  many  historians ;  and  it  is  certainly  true 
that  she  did  not  acquire  by  her  victory  a  single  inch  of  fresh 
territory,  nor  any  direct  advantage  beyond  the  enrichment  of 
the  State  treasury.  But  indirectly  the  advantages  which  she 
gained  were  considerable.  She  was  able  to  reward  her  allies, 
Eumenes  of  Pergamus  and  the  Rhodians,  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  it  apparent  to  the  whole  East  that  the  Roman  alliance 
was  highly  profitable.  She  was  able  to  establish,  and  she  did 
establish,  on  the  borders  of  Macedonia,  a  great  and  powerful 
state,  a  counterpoise  to  the  only  enemy  which  she  now  feared 
in  Europe.  She  was  able  to  obtain  a  cheap  renown  by  pro- 
claiming once  more  the  liberty  of  Greece,  and  insisting  that 
the  Greek  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  or  at  any  rate  those  which  had 
lent  her  aid,  should  be  recognized  as  free — a  proclamation 
which  cost  her  nothing,  and  whereby  she  secured  herself  a 
'  body  of  friends  on  whose  services  she  might  hereafter  count 
in  this  quarter.  That  she  was  content  with  these  gains,  that 
she  evacuated  Asia  Minor,  as  she  had  previously  evacuated 
Greece,  was  probably  owing  to  the  fact  that  she  was  not  as 
yet  prepared  to  occupy,  and  maintain  her  dominion  over, 
countries  so  far  distant  from  Rome.  She  had  found  the  diffi- 
culty of  holding  even  Spain  as  a  part  of  her  empire,  and  was 
forced  by  the  perpetual  attacks  of  the  unconquered  and  revolts 
of  the  conquered  natives  to  maintain  there  perpetually  an  army 


of  40,000  men.  She  had  not  yet  made  up  her  mind  to  annex 
even  Greece ;  much  less,  therefore,  could  she  think  of  holding 
the  remote  Asia  Minor.  It  was  sufficient  for  her  to  have  re- 
pulsed a  foe  who  had  ventured  to  advance  to  her  doors,  to  have 
increased  her  reputation  by  two  glorious  campaigns  and  a 
great  victory,  and  to  have  paved  the  way  for  a  future  occupa- 
tion of  Western  Asia,  if  circumstances  should  ever  render  it 

In  Greece,  the  defeat  of  Antiochus  was  followed,  necessarily, 
by  the  submission  of  the  ^tolians,  who  were  mulcted  in  large 
portions  of  their  territory  and  made  to  pay  a  heavy  fine.  Rome 
annexed  to  her  own  dominions  only  Cephallenia  and  Zacyn- 
thus,  distributing  the  rest  among  her  allies,  who,  however,  were 
very  far  from  being  satisfied.  The  Achaean  League  and  Philip 
were  both  equally  displeased  at  the.  limits  that  were  set  to  their 
ambition,  and  were  ready,  should  opportunity  offer,  to  turn 
their  arms  against  their  recent  ally. 

In  the  West,  four  wars  continued  to  occupy  a  good  deal,  of 
the  Roman  attention.  Spain  was  still  far  from  subdued ;  and 
the  Roman  forces  in  the  country  were  year  after  year  engaged 
against  the  Lusitani  or  the  Celtiberi,  with  very  doubtful  suc- 
cess, until  about  B.C.  181  to  178,  when  some  decided  advan- 
tages were  gained..  In  the  mountainous  Liguria  the  freedom- 
loving  tribes  showed  the  same  spirit  which  has  constantly  been 
exhibited  by  mountaineers,  as  by  the  Swiss,  the  Circassians, 
and  others.  War  raged  in  this  region  from  B.C.  193  to  170; 
and  the  Roman  domination  over  portions  of  the  Western 
Apennines  and  the  maritime  Alps  was  only  with  the  utmost 
difficulty  established  by  the  extirpation  of  the  native  races  or 
their  transplantation  to  distant  regions.  No  attempt  was  made 
really  to  subjugate  the  entire  territory.  It  was  viewed  as  a 
training-school  for  the  Roman  soldiers  and  officers,  standing 
to  Rome  very  much  as  Circassia  long  stood  to  Russia,  and  as 
Algeria  even  now  stands  to  France.  In  Sardinia  and  in  Cor- 
sica perpetual  wars,  resembling  slave-hunts,  were  waged  with 
the  native  races  of  the  interior,  especially  in  the  interval  from 
B.C.  181  to  173. 

The  discontent  of  Philip  did  not  lead  him  to  any  rash  or 
imprudent  measures.    He  defended  his  interests,  so  far  as  was 


possible,  by  negotiations.  When  Rome  insisted,  he  yielded. 
But  all  the  while,  he  was  nursing  the  strength  of  Macedonia, 
recruiting  her  finances,  increasing  the  number  of  her  allies, 
making  every  possible  preparation  for  a  renewal  of  the  strug- 
gle, which  had  gone  so  much  against  him  at  Cynoscephalae. 
Rome  suspected  him,  but  had  not  the  face  to  declare  actual 
war  against  so  recent  an  ally  and  so  complaisant  a  subordinate. 
She  contented  herself  with  narrowing  his  dominions,  strength- 
ening Eumenes  against  him,  and  sowing  dissensions  in  his 
family.  Demetrius,  his  younger  son,  who  lived  at  Rome  as  a 
hostage,  was*  encouraged  to  raise  his  thoughts  to  the  throne, 
which  he  was  given  to  understand  Rome  would  gladly  see  him 
occupy.  Whether  Demetrius  was  willing  to  become  a  "  cat's- 
paw  "  is  not  apparent ;  but  the  Roman  intrigues  on  his  behalf 
certainly  brought  about  his  death,  and  caused  the  reig^  of 
Philip  to  end  in  sorrow  and  remorse,  B.C.  179. 

The  accession  of  Perseus  to  the  Macedonian  throne  was 
only  so  far  a  gain  for  Rome  that  he  was  less  competent  than 
Philip  to  conduct  a  g^eat  enterprise.  In  many  respects  the 
position  of  Macedonia  was  bettered  by  the  change  of  sover- 
eigns. Perseus,  a  young  and  brave  prince,  was  popular,  not 
only  among  his  own*  subjects,  but  throughout  Greece,  where 
the  national  party  had  begun  to  see  that  independence  was  an 
impossible  dream,  and  that  the  choice  really  lay  between  sub- 
jection to  the  wholly  foreign  Romans  and  to  the  semi-Hellenic 
and  now  thoroughly  Hellenized  Macedonians.  Perseus,  again, 
had  no  personal  enemies.  The  kings  of  Syria  and  Egfypt,  who 
could  not  forgive  his  father  the  wrongs  which  they  had  suf- 
fered at  his  hands,  had  no  quarrel  with  the  present  monarch ; 
to  whom  the  former  (Seleucus  IV.)  readily  gave  his  daughter 
in  marriage.  The  design  of  Philip  to  re-establish  Macedonia 
in  a  position  of  real  independence  was  heartily  adopted  by  his 
successor;  and  Rome  learnt  by  every  act  of  the  new  prince, 
that  she  had  to  expect  shortly  an  outbreak  of  hostilities  in  this 

Yet,  for  a  while,  she  procrastinated.  Her  wars  with  Liguria, 
Sardinia,  and  Corsica  still  gave  her  occupation  in  the  West, 
while  a  new  enemy,  the  Istri,  provoked  by  the  establishment 
of  her  colony  of  Aquileia  (B.C.   183),  caused  her  constant 



trouble  and  annoyance  in  the  border  land  between  Italy  and 
Macedon,  the  Upper  lUyrian  country.  But,  about  B.C.  172, 
it  became  clear  that  further  procrastination  would  be  fatal  to 
her  interests — would,  in  fact,  be  equivalent  to  the  withdrawal 
of  all  further  interference  with  the  affairs  of  Greece  and  the 
East.  Perseus  was  becoming  daily  bolder  and  more  powerful. 
His  party  among  the  Greeks  was  rapidly  increasing.  The 
iEtolians  called  in  his  aid.  The  Boeotians  made  an  alliance  with 
him.  Byzantium  and  Lampsacus  placed  themselves  under  his 
protection.  Even  the  Rhodians  paid  him  honor  and  observ- 
ance. If  the  protectorate  of  Greece  was  not  to  slip  from  the 
hands  of  Rome  and  to  be  resumed  by  Macedon,  it  was  high 
time  that  Rome  should  take  the  field  and  vindicate  her  preten- 
sions by  force  of  arms.  Accordingly,  in  the  autumn  of  B.C. 
172,  an  embassy  was  sent  to  Perseus,  with  demands  wherewith 
it  was  impossible  that  he  should  comply ;  and  when  the  envoys 
were  abruptly  dismissed,  war  was  at  once  declared. 

The  victory  of  Pydna,  gained  by  L.  .^Emilius  PauUus  (June 
:t2y  B.C.  168),  was  a  repetition  of  that  at  Cynoscephalae,  but 
had  even  more  important  consequences.  Once  more  the  le- 
gion showed  itself  superior  to  the  phalanx ;  but  now  the  pha- 
lanx was  not  merely  defeated  but  destroyed,  and  with  it  fell 
the  monarchy  which  had  invented  it  and  by  its  means  attained 
to  greatness.  Nor  was  this  the  whole.  Not  only  did  the  king- 
dom of  Alexander  perish  at  Pydna,  144  years  after  his  death, 
but  the  universal  dominion  of  Rome  over  the  civilized  world 
was  thereby  finally  established.  The  battle  of  Pydna  was  the 
last  occasion  upon  which  a  civilized  foe  contended  on  some- 
thing like  equal  terms  with  Rome  for  a  separate  and  indepen- 
dent existence.  All  the  wars  in  which  Rome  was  engaged 
after  this  were  either  rebellions,  aggressive  wars  upon  barba- 
rians with  a  view  to  conquest,  or  defensive  wars  against  the 
barbarians  who  from  time  to  time  assailed  her.  The  victories 
of  Zama,  Magnesia,  and  Pydna  convinced  all  the  world  but 
the  "  outer  barbarians  "  that  it  was  in  vain  to  struggle  against 
Roman  ascendency,  that  safety  was  only  to  be  found  in  sub- 
mission and  obedience.  Hence  the  progress  of  Rome  from 
this  time  was,  comparatively  speaking,  peaceful.  Her  suc- 
cesses had  now  reduced  the  whole  civilized  world  to  depen- 


dence.  When  it  was  her  pleasure  to  exchange  dependence  for 
actual  incorporation  into  her  empire,  she  had  simply  to  de- 
clare her  will,  and  was,  generally,  unresisted.  Occasionally, 
indeed,  the  state  marked  out  for  absorption  would  in  sheer 
despair  take  up  arms ;  e.  g.,  Achaea,  Carthage,  Judaea.  But 
for  the  most  part  there  was  no  struggle,  merely  submission. 
Greece  (except  Achaea),  Macedonia,  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  Egypt, 
were  annexed  peaceably;  and  the  only  remaining  gjeat  war 
of  the  Republic  was  with  the  barbarian,  Mithridates  of  Pontus. 

But  Rome,  though  her  military  successes  had  elevated  her 
to  this  commanding  position,  was  still  loath  to  undertake  the 
actual  government  of  the  countries  over  which  she  had  estab- 
lished her  ascendency.  Her  experiment  in  Spain  was  not  en- 
couraging ;  and  she  would  willingly  have  obtained  the  advan- 
tages of  a  widely-extended  sway,  without  its  drawbacks  of 
enlarged  responsibilities  and  ever-recurring  difficulties  and 
entanglements.  Accordingly,  her  policy  was  still  to  leave  the 
conquered  regions  to  rule  themselves,  but  at  the  same  time  so 
to  weaken  them  by  separation,  that  they  might  never  more  be 
formidable,  and  so  to  watch  over  and  direct  their  proceedings 
that  these  might  in  no  way  clash  with  the  notions  which  she 
entertained  of  her  own  interests.  Moreover,  as  she  saw  no 
reason  why  she  should  not  obtain  permanent  pecuniary  advan- 
tage from  her  victories,  she  determined  to  take  from  both 
Illyricum  and  Macedonia  a  land-tax  equal  to  one-half  of  the 
amount  which  had  been  previously  exacted  by  the  native 

While,  however,  professedly  leaving  the  countries  which  she 
had  conquered  to  govern  themselves,  Rome  could  not  bring 
herself  really  to  let  them  act  as  they  pleased.  What  she  did 
was  to  substitute  for  government  a  system  of  surveillance. 
Everywhere  she  was  continually  sending  commissioners  (le- 
gati),  who  not  merely  kept  her  acquainted  with  all  that  passed 
in  the  states  which  they  visited,  but  actively  interfered  with 
the  course  of  government,  suggesting  certain  proceedings  and 
forbidding  others,  acting  as  referees  in  all  quarrels  between 
state  and  state,  giving  their  decisions  in  the  name  of  Rome, 
and  threatening  her  vengeance  on  the  recalcitrant. 

The  subjugation  of  the  enemies  of  Rome  was  always  fol- 


lowed  by  a  tendency  on  her  part  to  quarrel  with  her  friends. 
Her  friends  were  maintained  and  strengthened  merely  as  coun- 
terpoises to  some  foe ;  and  when  the  foe  ceased  to  exist  or  to 
be  formidable,  the  friends  were  no  longer  needed.  Thus  the 
fall  of  Macedonia  and  complete  prostration  of  Greece  produced 
an  immediate  coolness  between  Rome  and  her  chief  Eastern 
allies,  Pergamus  and  Rhodes. 

The  vast  prestige  which  Rome  acquired  by  the  victory  of 
Pydna  is  strikingly  shown  by  the  fact  that  she  was  able  in  the 
same  year  to  deprive  Antiochus  Epiphanes  of  the  fruits  of  all 
his  Egyptian  successes,  by  a  mere  command  haughtily  issued 
by  her  commissioner,  Popillius.  Antiochus  withdrew  from 
Egypt  when  he  was  on  the  point  of  conquering  it ;  and  even 
relinquished  the  island  of  Cyprus  to  his  antagonist.  Rome  al- 
lowed him,  however,  to  retain  possession  of  Coele-Syria  and 

The  pacification  of  the  East  was  followed  by  another  of  those 
pauses  which  occur  from  time  to  time  in  the  history  of  the 
Roman  Republic,  after  a  great  effort  has  been  made  and  a 
great  success  attained,  when  the  government  appears  to  have 
been  undecided  as  to  its  next  step.  Eighteen  years  intervene 
between  the  close  of  the  Third  Macedonian  and  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Third  Punic  War — eighteen  years,  during  which 
Rome  was  engaged  in  no  contest  of  the  least  importance,  un- 
less it  were  that  which  continued  to  be  waged  in  Spain  against 
the  Lusitanians  and  a  few  other  native  tribes.  She  did  not, 
indeed,  ever  cease  to  push  her  dominion  in  some  quarter.  In 
the  intervals  between  her  great  wars,  she  almost  always  prose- 
cuted some  petty  quarrels ;  and  this  was  the  case  in  the  interval ' 
between  B.C.  i68  and  150,  when  she  carried  on  hostilities  with  i 
several  insignificant  peoples,  as  the  Celtic  tribes,  in  the  Alpine  ' 
valleys,  the  Ligurians  of  the  tract  bordering  on  Nicsea  (Nice) 
and  Antipolis  (Antibes),  the  Dalmatians,  the  Corsicans,  and 

But  the  time  came  when  the  government  was  no  longer  con- 
tent with  these  petty  and  trivial  enterprises.  After  eighteen 
years  of  irresolution,  it  was  decided  to  take  important  matters 
in  hand — to  remove  out  of  the  way  the  city  which,  however 
reduced,  was  still  felt  to  be  Rome's  sole  rival  in  the  Western 


world,  and  to  assume  the  actual  government  of  a  new  depen- 
dency in  a  new  continent.  The  determination  to  destroy  Car- 
thage and  to  form  Africa  into  a  province,  was  in  no  way  forced 
upon  Rome  by  circumstances,  but  was  decided  upon  after 
abundant  deliberation  by  the  predominant  party  in  the  state, 
as  the  course  best  calculated  to  advance  Roman  interests.  The 
grounds  of  quarrel  with  Carthage  were  miserably  insufficient ; 
and  the  tyranny  of  the  stronger  was  probably  never  exerted  in 
a  grosser  or  more  revolting  form,  than  when  Rome  required 
that  Carthage,  which  had  observed,  and  more  than  observed, 
every  obligation  whereto  she  was  bound  in  treaty,  should  nev- 
ertheless, for  the  greater  advantage  of  Rome,  cease  to  exist. 
It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  idea  of  a  political  suicide 
would  approve  itself  to  the  Carthaginian  government.  But 
less  than  this  would  not  content  Rome,  which,  having  first  se- 
cured every  possible  advantage  from  the  inclination  of  her  ad- 
versary to  make  sacrifices  for  peace,  revealed  finally  a  require- 
ment that  could  not  be  accepted  without  war. 

The  Third  Punic  War  lasted  four  years — from  B.C.  149  to 
146  inclusive.  It  was  a  struggle  into  which  Carthage  entered 
purely  from  a  feeling  of  despair,  because  the  terms  offered  to 
her — the  destruction  of  the  city,  and  the  removal  of  the  people 
to  an  inland  situation — were  such  that  death  seemed  preferable 
to  them.  The  resistance  made  was  gallant  and  prolonged, 
though  at  no  time  was  there  any  reasonable  hope  of  success. 
Carthage  was  without  ships,  without  allies,  almost  without 
arms,  since  she  had  recently  surrendered  armor  and  weapons 
for  200,000  men.  Yet  she  maintained  the  unequal  fight  for 
four  years,  exhibiting  a  valor  and  an  inventiveness  worthy  of 
her  best  days.  At  length,  in  B.C.  146,  the  Romans  under 
Scipio  i^milianus,  forced  their  way  into  the  town,  took  it  al- 
most house  by  house,  fired  it  in  all  directions,  and  ended  by 
levelling  it  with  the  ground.  The  Carthaginian  territory  was 
then  made  into  the  "  province  "  of  "  Africa ; "  a  land-tax  and 
poll-tax  were  imposed ;  and  the  seat  of  government  was  fixed 
at  Utica. 

During  the  continuance  of  the  Carthaginian  War,  troubles 
broke  out  in  the  Hellenic  peninsula,  which  enabled  Rome  to 
pursue  in  that  quarter  also  the  new  policy  of  annexation  and 


absorption.  A  pretender,  who  gave  out  that  he  was  the  son  of 
Perseus,  raised  the  standard  of  revoh  in  Macedonia,  defeated 
the  Romans  in  a  pitched  battle,  B.C.  149,  and  invaded  Thes- 
saly,  but  was  in  the  following  year  himself  defeated  and  made 
prisoner  by  Metellus.  The  opportunity  was  at  once  taken  of 
reducing  Macedonia  into  the  form  of  a  "  province."  At  the 
same  time,  without  even  any  tolerable  pretext,  a  quarrel  was 
picked  with  the  Achaean  League,  B.C.  148,  which  was  required 
to  dissolve  itself.  A  brief  war  followed  which  was  terminated 
by  Mummius,  who  plundered  and  destroyed  Corinth,  B.C.  146. 
Achaea  was  then  practically  added  to  the  empire,  though  she 
was  still  allowed  for  some  years  to  amuse  herself  with  some  of 
the  old  forms  of  freedom,  from  which  all  vital  force  had  de- 

But  while  Rome  was  thus  extending  the  South  and 
in  the  East,  and  adding  new  provinces  to  her  empire,  in  her 
old  provinces  of  the  West  her  authority  was  fiercely  disputed ; 
and  it  was  with  the  utmost  difficulty  that  she  maintained  herself 
in  possession.  The  native  tribes  of  the  Spanish  Peninsula 
were  brave  and  freedom-loving ;  their  country  was  strong  and 
easy  of  defence ;  and  Rome  found  it  almost  impossible  to  sub- 
jugate them.  The  Roman  dominion  had  indeed  never  yet 
been  established  in  the  more  northern  and  western  portions  of 
the  country,  which  were  held  by  the  Lusitani,  the  Gallseci,  the 
Vaccaei,  and  the  Cantabri ;  and  a  perpetual  border  war  was  con- 
sequently maintained,  in  which  the  Roman  armies  were  fre- 
quently worsted.  The  gallantry  and  high  spirit  of  the  natives 
was  especially  shown  from  B.C.  149  to  140  under  the  leadership 
of  the  Lusitanian,  Viriathus ;  and  again  from  B.C.  143  to  133, 
in  the  course  of  the  desperate  resistance  ofifered  to  the  Roman 
arms  by  the  Numantians.  Rome  was  unable  to  overcome 
either  enemy  without  having  recourse  to  treachery. 

While  the  freedom-loving  tribes  of  the  West  showed  so 
much  reluctance  to  surrender  their  liberties  into  the  hands  of 
Rome,  in  the  East  her  dominion  received  a  large  extension  by 
the  voluntary  act  of  one  of  her  allies.  Attains  III.,  king  of 
Pergamus,  who  held  under  his  sovereignty  the  greater  part  of 
Asia  Minor,  was  found  at  his  death  (B.C.  133)  to  have  left  his 
Kingdom  by  will  to  the  Roman  people.    This  strange  legacy 


was,  as  was  natural,  disputed  by  the  expectant  heir,  Aristonicus, 
bastard  son  of  Attalus,  and  was  afterwards  denied  by  Mithrida- 
tes  V. ;  but  there  is  no  real  ground  for  calling  it  in  question* 
Rome  had  no  doubt  intrigued  to  obtain  the  cession,  and  con- 
sequently she  did  not  hesitate  to  accept  it.  A  short  war  with 
Aristonicus  (B.C.  133  to  130)  gave  the  Romans  full  possession 
of  the  territory,  the  greater  portion  of  which  was  formed  into 
a  province;  Phrygia  Major  being,  however,  detached,  and 
ceded  to  Mithridates  IV.,  king  of  Pontus,  who  had  assisted 
Rome  in  the  brief  struggle. 

The  internal  changes  in  the  Roman  government  during  the 
period  here  under  consideration  were  gentle,  gradual,  and  for 
the  most  part  informal ;  but  they  amounted  in  course  of  time  to 
a  sensible  and  far  from  unimportant  modification.  The  long 
struggle  between  the  Patrician  and  Plebeian  Orders  was  termi- 
nated by  the  Genucian  revolution ;  and,  the  chief  Plebeian  fam- 
ilies being  now  placed  on  a  par  with  the  Patricians,  a  united 
nobility  stood  at  the  head  of  the  nation,  confronting  and  con- 
fronted by  a  proletariate,  with  only  a  rather  small  and  not  very 
active  middle  class  intervening  between  them.  The  prole- 
tariate, however,  was  in  part  amenable  to  the  nobility,  being 
composed  of  persons  who  were  its  Clients ;  and  it  was  not  dif- 
ficult to  keep  the  remaining  members  in  good-humor  by  be- 
stowing upon  them  from  time  to  time  allotments  of  land  in  the 
conquered  territories.  On  the  whole,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
proletariate  was,  during  this  period,  at  the  beck  and  call  of  the 
nobles,  while  the  only  opposition  which  caused  them  anxiety 
was  that  of  the  middle  class — Italian  farmers  principally — who, 
supported  by  some  of  the  less  distinguished  Plebeian  "  houses," 
formed  an  "  opposition,"  which  was  sometimes  formidable. 

It  was  the  object  of  the  nobles  to  increase  the  power  of  the 
Senate  as  compared  with  the  "  comitia ; "  and  to  bring  the 
"  comitia  "  themselves  under  aristocratic  influence.  The  ex- 
altation of  the  Senate  was  effected  very  gradually.  The  more 
important  foreign  affairs  became — and  everything  was  foreign 
out  of  Italy — the  greater  grew  to  be  the  power  of  the  Senate, 
which  settled  all  such  matters  without  reference  to  the  "  co- 
mitia." And,  with  respect  to  home  affairs,  the  more  widely 
the  franchise  was  extended  (and  it  reached  through  the  Roman 


colonies  to  very  remote  parts  of  Italy),  the  more  numerous  and 
varied  the  elements  that  were  admitted  to  it,  the  less  were  the 
"  comitia  "  possessed  of  any  distinct  and  positive  will,  and  the 
more  easy  did  it  become  to  manipulate  and  manage  them.  As 
a  rule,  the  people  stood  and  assented  to  all  proposals  made  by 
the  magistrates.  They  were  too  widely  scattered  over  the  ter- 
ritory to  be  instructed  beforehand,  too  numerous  to  be  ad- 
dressed eflfectively  at  the  time  of  voting — besides  which,  no  one 
but  the  presiding  magistrate  had  the  right  of  addressing  them. 

To  bring  the  "  comitia  "  more  completely  under  the  hands 
of  the  government,  the  vast  bodies  of  freedmen,  who  consti- 
tuted at  this  time  the  chief  portion  of  the  retainers  (clicntes)  of 
each  noble  house,  were  continually  admitted  to  the  franchise, 
either  by  a  positive  enactment,  as  in  B.C.  240,  or  by  the  care- 
lessness or  collusion  of  the  censors,  who  every  five  years  made 
out  anew  the  roll  of  the  citizens.  The  lower  classes  of  the  in- 
dependent voters  were  also  systematically  corrupted  by  the 
practice  of  largesses,  especially  distributions  of  corn,  and  by 
the  exhibition  of  games  at  the  private  cost  of  the  magistrates, 
who  curried  favor  with  the  voters  by  the  splendor  and  expense 
of  their  shows.  It  was  also,  perhaps,  to  increase  the  influence 
of  the  nobles  over  the  centuries  that  the  change  was  made  by 
which  each  of  the  five  classes  was  assigned  an  equal  number 
of  votes ;  for  the  wealthier  citizens  not  within  the  noble  class 
were  at  this  time  the  most  independent  and  the  most  likely  to 
thwart  the  will  of  the  government. 

Still,  no  hard-and-fast  line  was  drawn  between  the  nobles 
and  the  rest  of  the  community,  no  barrier  which  could  not  be 
overstepped.  A  family  became  noble  through  its  members  ob- 
taining any  of  the  high  offices  of  the  State,  and  through  its  thus 
having  "  images  of  ancestors  "  to  show.  And  legally  the  high- 
est office  was  open  to  every  citizen.  Practically,  however,  the 
chief  offices  came  to  be  confined  almost  to  a  clique.  This  was 
owing,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  absolute  need  of  great  wealth 
for  certain  offices,  as  especially  the  aedileship,  and  to  the  law 
(passed  in  B.C.  180)  by  which  a  regular  rotation  of  offices  was 
fixed,  and  no  one  could  reach  the  higher  till  he  had  first  served 
the  lower.  But,  beyond  this,  it  is  evident  that  after  a  time  a 
thoroughly  exclusive  spirit  grew  up ;  and  all  the  influence  of  the 


nobles  over  the  "  comitia  "  was  exerted  to  keep  out  of  high 
office  every  "  new  man  "—every  one,  that  is,  who  did  not  be^ 
long  to  the  narrow  list  of  some  forty  or  fifty  "  houses  "  who 
considered  it  their  right  to  rule  the  commonwealth. 

The  attempts  of  the  "  opposition  "  were  limited  to  two  kinds 
of  efforts.  First,  they  vainly  wasted  their  strength  in  noble 
but  futile  efforts  to  check  the  spread  of  luxury  and  corruption, 
including  however  under  those  harsh  names  much  that  modem 
society  would  regard  as  proper  civilization  and  refinement. 
Secondly,  they  now  and  then  succeeded  by  determined  exer- 
tions in  raising  to  high  office  a  "  new  man  " — a  Porcius  Cato, 
or  a  C.  Flaminius — who  was  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  the  nobles 
during  the  remainder  of  his  lifetime,  but  rarely  effected  any 
political  change  of  importance.  Altogether,  the  "  opposition  " 
seems  fairly  taxable  with  narrow  views  and  an  inability  to  g^p- 
ple  with  the  difficulties  of  the  situation.  The  age  was  one  of 
"  political  mediocrities."  Intent  on  pursuing  their  career  of 
conquest  abroad,  the  Roman  people  cared  little  and  thought 
little  of  affairs  at  home.  The  State  drifted  into  difficulties, 
which  were  unperceived  and  unsuspected,  till  they  suddenly 
declared  themselves  with  startling  violence  at  the  epoch  where- 
at we  have  now  arrived. 


From  the  Commencement  of  internal  Troubles  under  the 
Gracchi  to  the  Establishment  of  the  Empire  under  Au- 
gustus, B.C.  133  to  A.D.  30.* 

An  epoch  is  now  reached  at  which  the  foreign  wars  of  Rome 
become  few  and  unimportant,  while  the  internal  affairs  of  the 
State  have  once  more  a  grave  and  absorbing  interest.    Civil 

♦  Sources.  The  continuous  histories  of  this  period,  composed  by 
ancient  writers,  whether  Greek  or  Latin,  if  we  except  mere  sketches  and 
epitomes,  are  all  lost.  For  the  earlier  portion  of  it — B.C.  133  to  70— our 
materials  are  especially  scanty.  Plutarch,  in  his  "  Lives  "  of  the  Gracchi, 
of  Marius,  Sylla,  Lucullus,  Crassus,  and  Sertorius,  and  Appian, 
"  De  Bellis  Civilibus,"  are  the  chief  authorities;  to  which  may  be  added 
Sallust's  "  Jug^urtha,"  a  brilliant  and  valuable  monograph,  together 
with  a  few  fragments  of  his  "  Histories."    In  this  comparative  scarcity 


troubles  and  commotions  follow  one  another  with  great  rapid- 
ity ;  and  finally  we  come  to  a  period  when  the  arms  of  the  Ro- 
mans are  turned  against  themselves,  and  the  conquerors  of  the 
world  engage  in  civil  wars  of  extraordinary  violence.  The 
origin  of  these  disturbances  is  to  be  found  in  the  gulf  which  had 
been  gradually  forming  and  widening  between  the  poor  and  the 
rich,  the  nobles  and  the  proletariate.  For  a  long  series  of 
years,  from  the  termination  of  the  Second  Samnite  War  to  the 
final  settlement  of  Northern  Italy  (B.C.  303  to  177),  the  press- 
ure of  poverty  had  been  continually  kept  down  and  alleviated, 
partly  by  the  long  and  bloody  struggles  which  decimated  the 
population  and  so  relieved  the  labor-market,  partly  by  distri- 
butions of  plunder,  and,  above  all,  by  assignations  of  lands. 
But  the  last  Italian  colony  was  sent  out  in  B.C.  177 ;  and  a  new 
generation  had  now  grown  up  which  had  neither  received  nor 
expected  any  such  relief.  The  lands  of  Italy  were  all  occu- 
pied ;  no  nation  within  its  borders  remained  to  be  conquered ; 
and  settlements  beyond  the  seas  possessed  for  the  ordinary  Ro- 
man citizen  few  attractions.  As  the  wars  came  to  be  less  con- 
stant and  less  sanguinary,  the  population  increased  rapidly,  and 
no  vent  was  provided  for  the  newcomers.  The  labor-market 
was  overcrowded ;  it  became  difficult  for  a  poor  man  to  obtain 
a  living;  and  those  dangers  arose  which  such  a  condition  of 
things  is  sure  to  bring  upon  a  State. 

The  state  of  affairs  would  have  been  very  different  had  the 
Licinian  law  with  respect  to  the  employment  of  free  labor  been 
enforced  against  the  occupiers  of  the  public  domain.    This  do- 

of  sources,  even  the  brief  compendium  of  the  prejudiced  Paterculus, 
and  the  "  Epitomes  "  of  the  careless  and  inaccurate  Livy,  come  to  have 
an  importance.  From  about  B.C.  70,  there  is  an  improvement  both  in 
the  amount  and  in  the  character  of  the  extant  materials.  Appian  con- 
tinues to  be  of  service,  as  also  does  Plutarch  in  his  "  Lives  "  of  Cicero, 
Pompey,  Julius  Caesar,  Cato  the  younger,  Brutus,  and  Antonius; 
while  we  obtain,  in  addition,  abundant  information  of  the  most  au- 
thentic kind,  first,  from  the  contemporary  "  Speeches  "  and  "  Letters  " 
of  Cicero,  and  then  from  the  "  Commentaries  "  of  Caesar  and  Hirtius. 
The  continuous  narrative  of  Dio  Cassius  begins  also  from  the  year  B.C. 
69;  the  "  Catiline  "  of  Sallust  belongs  to  the  years  B.C.  66  to  62;  and 
Suetonius's  "  Lives  "  of  Julius  and  Octavius  fall,  the  one  entirely,  the 
other  partially,  within  the  date  which  terminates  the  period. 


main,  which  had  now  become  extremely  large,  had,  naturally 
enough,  been  occupied  by  the  capitalist  (which  was  nearly 
identical  with  the  governing)  class,  who  had  at  the  time  seemed 
to  compensate  fairly  the  non-capitahsts  by  extremely  liberal 
allotments  of  small  plots  of  ground  in  absolute  property.  But, 
wliile  the  poorer  classes  increased  in  number,  the  richer  were 
stationary,  or  even  dwindled.  Old  "  houses  "  became  extinct, 
while  new  "  houses  "  only  vnth  great  difficulty  pushed  them- 
selves into  the  ruling  order.  There  were  no  means  of  obtain- 
ing much  wealth  at  Rome  except  by  the  occupation  of  domain 
lands  on  a  large  scale,  by  the  farming  of  the  revenue,  or  by  the 
government  of  the  produces.  But  these  sources  of  wealth 
were,  all  of  them,  at  the  disposal  of  the  ruling  class,  who  as- 
signed them,  almost  without  exception,  to  members  of  their 
own  families.  Thus  the  wealthy  were  continually  becoming 
more  wealthy,  while  the  i>c>or  grew  poorer.  There  was  no  ap- 
preciable introduction  of  new  blood  into  the  ranks  of  the  aris- 
tocracy. The  domain  land  was  in  B.C.  133  engrossed  by  the 
members  of  some  forty  or  fifty  Roman  "  houses  "  and  by  a  cer- 
tain number  of  rich  Italians,  of  whom  the  former  had  gjown 
to  be  enormously  wealthy  by  inheritance,  intermarriages,  and 
the  monopoly  of  government  employments.  The  "  modus 
agjorum  "  established  by  Licinius  had  fallen  into  oblivion,  or 
at  least  into  disuse ;  and  several  thousand  **  jugera  "  were  prob- 
ably often  held  by  a  single  man.  Still,  in  all  this  there  would 
have  been  no  very  g^eat  hardship,  had  the  domain  land  been  cul- 
tivated by  the  free  labor  of  Roman  citizens,  either  wholly  or  in 
any  decent  proportion.  In  that  case,  the  noble  "  possessor  " 
must  have  conveyed  to  his  estate,  in  whatever  part  of  Italy  it 
was  situated,  a  body  of  poor  Roman  freemen,  who  would  have 
formed  a  sort  of  colony  upon  his  land,  and  would  have  only 
differed  from  other  colonists  in  working  for  wages  instead  of 
cultivating  on  their  own  account.  The  Roman  labor-market 
would  have  been  relieved,  and  no  danger  would  have  threat- 
ened the  State  from  its  lower  orders.  But  it  seemed  to  the 
"  possessor  "  more  economical  and  more  convenient  to  culti- 
vate his  land  by  means  of  slaves,  which  the  numerous  wars  of 
the  times,  together  with  the  regular  slave-trade,  had  made 
cheap.  The  Licinian  enactment  was  therefore  very  early  set 



at  naught;  and  it  was  not  enforced.    Everywhere  over  Italy 
the  pubHc  domain  was  cultivated  by  gangs  of  slaves. 

Among  the  more  wise  and  patriotic  of  the  Romans  it  had 
long  been  seen  that  this  state  of  things  was  fraught  with  peril. 
At  Rome  a  proletariate  daily  becoming  poorer  and  more  un- 
wieldy, content  hitherto  to  be  at  the  beck  and  call  of  the  nobles, 
but  if  it  once  grew  to  be  hungry  and  hopeless,  then  most  dan- 
gerous— in  Italy  a  vast  slave  population,  composed  largely  of 
those  who  had  known  liberty  and  were  not  deficient  in  intelli- 
gence, harshly  treated  and  without  any  attachment  to  its  mas-  i 
ters,  which  might  be  expected  on  any  favorable  opportunity  to 
rise  and  fight  desperately  for  freedom — the  government,  if  an 
outbreak  occurred,  dependent  on  the  swords  of  the  soldiers, 
who  might  largely  sympathize  with  the  poorer  classes,  from 
which  they  were  in  great  measure  taken — such  a  combination 
boded  ill  for  peace,  and  claimed  the  serious  consideration  of  all 
who  pretended  to  the  name  of  statesmen.  Unhappily,  at  Rome, 
statesmen  were  "  few  and  far  between ;  "  yet,  about  B.C.  140, 
Laelius  (the  friend  of  Scipio)  had  recognized  the  peril  of  the 
situation,  and  had  proposed  some  fresh  agrarian  enactments  as 
a  remedy,  but  had  been  frightened  from  his  purpose  by  the 
opposition  which  the  nobles  threatened.  Matters  went  on  in 
the  old  groove  till  B.C.  133,  when  at  length  a  tribune  of  the 
Plebs,  Ti.  Sempronius  Gracchus  by  name,  a  member  of  one  of 
the  noblest  Plebeian  houses,  came  forward  with  a  set  of  prop- 
ositions which  had  for  their  object  the  relief  of  the  existing 
distress  among  the  Roman  citizens,  and  the  improvement  of 
the  general  condition  of  Italy  by  the  substitution  of  free  cultiva- 
tors of  the  small  yeoman  class  for  the  gangs  of  disaffected  slaves 
who  were  now  spread  over  the  country.  The  exact  measures 
which  he  proposed  were,  (i)  The  revival  of  the  obsolete  law  of 
Licinius,  fixing  the  amount  of  domain  land  which  a  man  might 
legally  occupy  at  500  jugera,  with  the  modification  that  he 
might  hold  also  250  jugera  for  each  of  his  unemancipated  adult 
sons ;  (2)  The  appointment  of  a  standing  commission  of  three 
members  to  enforce  the  law ;  (3)  The  division  among  the  poorer 
citizens  of  the  State  lands  which  would  by  the  operation  of  the 
first  provision  become  vacant;  (4)  The  compensation  of  the 
possessores  on  account  of  their  losses  from  improvements  made 


on  the  lands  which  they  reHnquished  by  the  assignment  to  them 
of  the  portions  of  land  which  they  legally  retained  in  absolute 
ownership ;  and  (5)  The  proviso  that  the  new  allotments,  when 
once  made,  should  be  inalienable. 

The  propositions  of  Gracchus  were  intensely  disagreeable  to 
the  bulk  of  the  nobility  and  to  a  certain  number  of  the  richer 
Italians,  who  had,  legally  or  illegally,  become  occupiers  of  the 
domain  to  an  extent  beyond  that  which  it  was  proposed  to 
establish  as  the  limit.  Naturally  therefore  his  laws  were  op- 
posed. The  opposition  was  led  by  one  of  his  own  colleagues, 
the  tribune  Octavius,  who  by  his  veto  prevented  the  vote  of  the 
tribes  from  being  taken.  An  unseemly  contention  followed, 
which  Gracchus,  unfortunately  for  himself  and  for  his  cause, 
terminated  by  proposing  to  the  tribes,  and  carrying,  the  deposi- 
tion of  his  adversary.  The  laws  were  then  passed,  a  commis- 
sion was  appointed  (Gracchus,  his  brother  Caius,  and  Ap. 
Claudius,  his  father-in-law),  and  the  work  of  resumption  and 
distribution  commenced. 

But  it  was  more  easy  to  initiate  than  to  carry  out  a  measure 
of  such  extent  and  complication,  and  one  that  aroused  such 
fierce  passions,  as  that  which  the  bold  tribune  had  taken  in 
hand.  As  he  advanced  in  his  work  his  popularity  waned.  His 
adversaries  took  heart ;  and,  to  secure  himself  and  his  cause, 
he  was  forced  to  propose  fresh  laws  of  a  more  and  more  revo- 
lutionary character.  The  propositions  which  he  made,  and  his 
conduct  in  endeavoring  to  secure  his  re-election,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  carrying  them,  goaded  his  enemies  to  fury;  and  the 
Senate  itself,  with  Scipio  Nasica  at  its  head,  took  the  lead  in  a 
violent  attack  upon  him  as  he  presided  in  the  Tribes,  and  mur- 
dered him  in  open  day  together  with  300  of  his  partisans. 

The  open  murder  of  a  tribune  of  the  Plebs  engaged  in  the 
duties  of  his  office  was  an  unprecedented  act  in  Roman  history 
(for  the  assassination  of  Genucius,  B.C.  471,  had  been  secret), 
and  sufficiently  indicated  the  arrival  of  a  new  period,  when  the 
old  respect  for  law  and  order  would  no  longer  hold  its  ground, 
and  the  State  would  become  a  prey  to  the  violent  and  the  un- 
scrupulous. For  the  moment,  however,  the  evil  deed  done  re- 
coiled upon  its  authors.  Nasica,  denounced  as  a  murderer  on 
all  hands,  though  unprosecuted,  was  forced  to  quit  Italy  and 


go  into  banishment.  The  Agrarian  Commission  of  Gracchus 
was  renewed,  and  allowed  to  continue  its  labors.  Moderation 
on  the  part  of  the  democratic  leaders  who  had  succeeded  to  the 
position  of  Gracchus  would  have  secured  important  results  for 
the  poor  from  the  martyrdom  of  their  champion ;  but  the  ar- 
bitrary conduct  of  the  new  commissioners,  Carbo  and  Flaccus, 
disgusted  the  moderate  party  at  Rome  and  large  numbers  of 
the  Italians;  the  Senate  found  itself  strong  enough  to  quash 
the  Commission  and  assign  the  execution  of  the  Sempronian 
Law  to  the  ordinary  executive,  the  consuls ;  and  finally,  when, 
by  the  assassination  of  the  younger  Africanus,  the  democrats 
had  put  themselves  decidedly  in  the  wrong,  it  was  able  to  go  a 
step  farther,  and  suspend  proceedings  under  the  law  altogether. 

A  lull  in  the  storm  now  occurred — a  period  of  comparative 
tranquillity,  during  which  only  a  few  mutterings  were  heard, 
indications  to  the  wise  that  all  was  not  over.  A  claim  to  the 
franchise  began  to  be  urged  by  the  Latins  and  Italians,  and  to 
find  advocates  among  the  democratic  Romans,  who  thought 
that  in  the  accession  of  these  fresh  members  to  the  tribes  they 
saw  a  means  of  more  effectually  controlling  the  Senate.  Q. 
Fabius  Flaccus,  the  consul  of  B.C.  125,  formulated  these  claims 
into  a  law ;  but  the  Senate  contrived  to  tide  over  the  difficulty 
by  sending  him  upon  foreign  service.  The  revolt  of  the  dis- 
appointed Fregellae  followed ;  and  the  bloody  vengeance  taken 
on  the  unhappy  town  frightened  the  Italians,  for  the  time  at 
any  rate,  into  silence.  Meanwhile,  the  younger  Gracchus,  who 
had  gone  as  quaestor  into  Sardinia,  B.C.  126,  was  detained  there 
by  the  Senate's  orders  till  B.C.  124,  when  he  suddenly  returned 
to  Rome  and  announced  himself  as  a  candidate  for  the  trib- 

The  measures  of  C.  Gracchus  were  more  varied  and  more 
sweeping  than  those  of  his  elder  brother ;  but  they  were  cast  in 
the  same  mould.  He  had  the  same  two  objects  in  view — the 
relief  of  the  poorer  classes,  and  the  depression  of  the  power  of 
the  Senate.  Like  his  brother,  he  fell  a  victim  to  his  exertions 
in  the  popular  cause ;  but  he  effected  more.  His  elevation  of 
the  Equestrian  Order,  and  his  system  of  corn-largesses — ^the 
"  Roman  poor-law,"  as  it  has  been  called — survived  him,  and 
became  permanent  parts  of  the  constitution.    To  him  is  also 


attributable  the  extension  of  the  Roman  colonial  system  into 
the  provinces.  He  was  a  great  and  good  man ;  but  he  had  a 
difficult  part  to  play ;  and  he  was  wanting  in  the  tact  and  dis- 
cretion which  the  circumstances  of  the  times  required.  The 
Senate,  being  far  more  than  his  match  in  finesse  and  manoeuvre, 
triumphed  over  him,  though  not  without  once  more  having  re- 
course to  violence,  and  staining  the  streets  and  prisons  of  Rome 
with  the  blood  of  above  3000  of  her  citizens. 

The  death  of  C.  Gracchus  was  followed  within  a  short  space 
by  the  practical  repeal  of  his  Agrarian  law.  First  the  proviso 
that  the  allotments  made  under  it  should  be  inalienable  was 
abrogated,  so  that  the  rich  might  recover  them  through  mort- 
gage or  purchase.  Then  a  law  was  passed  forbidding  any 
further  allotments  ("  Lex  Boria  "),  and  imposing  a  quit-rent 
on  all  "  possessores,"  the  whole  amount  of  which  was  to  be 
annually  distributed  among  the  poorer  classes  of  the  people. 
Finally,  by  the  "  Lex  Thoria,"  the  quit-rents  were  abolished, 
and  the  domain  land  in  the  hands  of  the  "  possessores  "  was 
made  over  to  them  absolutely. 

The  twenty  years  from  B.C.  120  to  100  formed  a  time  of 
comparative  internal  tranquillity.  Rome  during  this  period 
was  under  the  government  of  the  aristocratical  party,  which 
directed  her  policy  and  filled  up  most  of  the  high  offices.  But 
the  party  was  during  the  whole  period  losing  ground.  The 
corruption  of  the  upper  classes  was  gradually  increasing,  and 
— what  was  worse  for  their  interests — was  becoming  more 
generally  known.  The  circumstances  of  the  Jugurthine  War 
brought  it  prominently  into  notice.  At  the  same  time  the 
democratic  party  was  learning  its  strength.  It  found  itself 
able  by  vigorous  efforts  to  carry  its  candidates  and  its  measures 
in  the  Tribes.  It  learnt  to  use  the  weapons  which  had  proved 
so  effectual  in  the  hands  of  the  nobles — violence  and  armed 
tumult — against  them.  And,  towards  the  close  of  the  period, 
it  obtained .  leaders  as  bold  and  ruthless  as  those  who  in  the 
time  of  the  Gracchi  had  secured  the  victory  for  the  opposite 

While  internally  Rome  remained  in  tolerable  tranquillity, 
externally  she  was  engaged  in  several  most  important  and  even 
dangerous  wars.    The  year  of  the  death  of  C.  Gracchus,  B.C. 


121,  saw  the  conquest  of  Southern  Gaul  effected  by  the  victories 
of  Domitius  and  Fabius,  and  the  formation  of  that  new  "  Prov- 
ince "  whereto  the  title  has  ever  since  adhered  as  a  proper  name 
(Provence).  Three  years  later,  B.C.  ii8,  the  troubles  began 
in  Africa  which  led  to  the  Jugurthine  War.  That  war  was 
chiefly  important  for  the  revelation  which  it  made  of  Roman 
aristocratic  corruption,  and  for  the  fact  that  it  first  brought 
prominently  into  notice  the  two  great  party-leaders,  Marius 
and  Sulla.  Scarcely  was  it  ended  when  a  real  danger  threat- 
ened Rome  from  the  barbarians  of  the  North,  a  danger  from 
which  Marius,  the  best  general  of  the  time,  with  difficulty  saved 

Before  the  war  with  Jugurtha  was  over,  that  with  the  North- 
ern barbarians  had  begun.  The  Cimbri  and  Teutones — Celts 
probably  and  Germans — issuing,  as  it  would  seem,  from  the 
tract  beyond  the  Rhine  and  Danube,  appeared  suddenly  in  vast 
numbers  in  the  region  between  those  streams  and  the  Alps, 
ravaging  it  at  their  will,  and  from  time  to  time  threatening,  and 
even  crossing,  the  Roman  frontier,  and  inflicting  losses  upon 
the  Roman  armies.  The  natives  of  the  region  especially  subject 
to  their  ravages,  in  great  part,  joined  them,  especially  the  Am- 
brones,  Tigurini,  and  Tectosages.  As  early  as  B.C.  113  a 
horde  of  Cimbri  crossed  the  Alps  and  defeated  the  consul  Cn. 
Papirius  Carbo,  in  Istria.  In  B.C.  109,  Cimbri  appeared  on 
the  borders  of  Roman  Gaul  (Provence)  and  demanded  lands. 
Opposed  by  the  consul  M.  Junius  Silanus,  they  attacked  and 
defeated  him ;  and  from  this  time  till  B.C.  loi  the  war  raged 
almost  continuously,  Marius  finally  bringing  it  to  a  close  by 
his  victory  near  Vercellse  in  that  year. 

The  victories  of  Aquae  Sextiae  and  Vercellse  raised  Marius 
to  a  dangerous  eminence.  Never,  since  the  first  establishment 
of  the  Republic,  had  a  single  citizen  so  far  outshone  all  rivals. 
Had  Marius  possessed  real  statesmanship,  he  might  have  an- 
ticipated the  work  of  Julius,  and  have  imposed  himself  on  the 
State  as  its  permanent  head.  But,  though  sufficiently  ambi- 
tious, he  wanted  judgment  and  firmness.  He  had  no  clear  and 
definite  views,  either  of  the  exact  position  to  which  he  aspired, 
or  of  the  means  whereby  he  was  to  attain  to  it.  His  course 
was  marked  by  hesitation  and  indecision.     Endeavoring  to 


please  all  parties,  he  pleased  none.  At  first  allying  himself 
with  Glaucia  and  Saturninus,  he  gave  his  sanction  to  the  long 
series  of  measures  by  which  the  latter — the  first  thorough  Ro- 
man demagogue — sought  to  secure  the  favor  of  the  lower  or- 
ders. He  encouraged  the  persecution  of  Metellus,  and  gladly 
saw  him  driven  into  exile,  thus  deeply  offending  the  senatorial 
party.  But  when  the  violence  and  recklessness  of  his  allies  had 
provoked  an  armed  resistance  and  civil  disturbances  began, 
he  shrank  from  boldly  casting  in  his  lot  with  the  innovators, 
and,  while  attempting  to  screen,  in  fact  sacrificed,  his  friends. 
The  fall  of  Saturninus  was  followed,  B.C.  99,  by  the  recall 
of  Metellus  from  banishment,  and  the  voluntary  exile  of  the 
haughty  and  now  generally  unpopular  Marius.  That  great 
general  but  poor  statesman  retired  to  Asia  and  visited  the 
court  of  Mithridates.  The  triumph  of  his  rival,  though  stained 
by  the  murder  of  another  tribune,  seemed  for  a  time  to  have 
given  peace  to  Rome ;  but  the  period  of  tranquillity  was  not 
of  long  duration.  In  B.C.  91,  M.  Livius  Drusus,  the  son  of  the 
Drusus  who  had  opposed  C.  Gracchus,  brought  forward  a  set 
of  measures  which  had  for  their  object  the  reconcilement,  at 
Rome,  of  the  Senatorian  with  the  Equestrian  Order,  and,  in 
Italy,  of  the  claims  of  the  Italians  with  those  of  the  old  citizens 
of  Rome.  There  had  now  been  for  thirty  years  a  struggle  at 
Rome  between  the  nobles  and  the  bourgeoisie  on  the  ques- 
tion of  which  of  the  two  should  furnish  the  judices;  ex- 
pectations had  been  also  for  about  the  same  space  of  time 
held  out  to  the  Italians  generally  that  they  would  be  accepted 
into  full  citizenship.  It  was  venturesome  in  Drusus  to  address 
himself  at  one  and  the  same  time  to  both  these  great  questions. 
Successfully  to  gfrapple  with  them  a  man  was  required  of  first- 
rate  powers,  one  who  could  bend  opposing  classes  to  his  will, 
and  compel  or  induce  them  to  accept,  however  reluctantly,  the 
compromise  which  he  considered  just  or  expedient.  Drusus 
seems  to  have  possessed  mere  good  intentions,  combined  with 
average  ability.  He  carried  his  "  lex  de  judiciis,"  but  was  un- 
able to  pass  that  extending  the  franchise.  Once  more  the 
Roman  conservatives  had  recourse  to  assassination,  and  de- 
layed a  necessary  reform  by  a  bold  use  of  the  knife.  Drusus 
was  murdered  before  his  year  of  office  was  out ;  and  the  laws 


which  he  had  passed  were  declared  null  and  void  by  the  gov- 

The  murder  of  Drusus  drove  the  Italians  to  despair.  Ac- 
customed for  many  years  to  form  an  important  element  in  the 
Roman  armies,  and  long  buoyed  up  with  hopes  of  obtaining 
the  advantages  of  citizenship — the  chief  oi  which  were  lands, 
cheap  corn,  and  the  covert  bribery  of  largesses — the  tribes  of 
Central  and  Southern  Italy,  finding  their  champion  murdered 
and  their  hopes  dashed  to  the  ground,  flew  to  arms.  Eight 
nations,  chiefly  of  the  Sabine  stock,  entered  into  close  alliance, 
chose  Corfinium  in  the  Pelignian  Apennines  for  their  capital, 
and  formed  a  federal  republic,  to  which  they  gave  the  name  of 
"  Italia."  At  the  outset,  great  success  attended  the  effort ;  and 
it  seemed  as  if  Rome  must  have  succumbed.  Lucius  Caesar, 
one  of  the  consuls,  Perperna,  one  of  his  legates,  and  Postumius, 
the  praetor,  were  defeated.  The  allies  overran  Campania,  de- 
stroyed a  consular  army  under  Csepio,  and  entered  into  nego- 
tiations with  the  northern  Italians,  whose  fidelity  now  wav- 
ered. But  the  sagacious  policy  of  Rome  changed  the  face  of 
affairs,  and  secured  her  a  triumph  which  she  could  not  have 
accomplished  by  arms  alone.  The  "  Julian  Law  "  conferred 
full  citizenship  both  on  such  of  the  Italians  as  had  taken  no 
part  in  the  war  hitherto,  the  Etruscans,  Umbrians,  Sabines 
proper,  Hernicans,  etc.,  and  also  on  all  such  as  upon  the  pas- 
sage of  the  law  ceased  to  take  part  in  it.  By  this  proviso  the 
revolt  became  disorganized ;  a  "  peace  party  "  was  formed  in 
the. ranks  of  the  allies;  nation  after  nation  fell  away  from  the 
league ;  Rome  gained  successes  in  the  field ;  and  at  last,  when 
only  Samnium  and  Lucania  remained  in  arms,  the  policy  of 
concession  was  once  more  adroitly  used,  and  the  "  Lex  Plotia," 
which  granted  all  that  the  allies  had  ever  claimed,  put  an  end 
to  the  war. 

The  part  taken  by  Marius  in  the  Social  War  had  redounded 
little  to  his  credit.  He  had  served  as  legate  to  the  consul 
Rutilius,  in  the  first  disastrous  year,  and  had  declined  battle 
when  Pompaedius  offered  it.  Probably  his  sympathies  were 
with  the  revolters,  and  he  had  no  desire  to  push  them  to  ex- 
tremities. Sulla,  on  the  other  hand,  had  greatly  increased  his 
reputation  by  his  campaigns  of  B.C.  89  and  88;   and  it  was 


therefore  natural  that  he  should  be  selected  by  the  Senate 
as  the  commander  who  was  to  undertake  the  war  against 
Mithridates,  which  needed  a  first-rate  general.  But  this  se- 
lection deeply  offended  Marius,  who  had  long  regarded  the 
conduct  of  that  struggle  as  his  due.  Determined  to  displace 
his  rival,  or  perhaps  actuated  by  a  less  selfish  motive,  he 
suddenly  undertook  the  open  championship  of  the  Italians, 
whose  forced  admission  to  the  franchise  the  government  was 
attempting  to  make  a  mockery  by  confining  them,  despite 
their  large  numbers,  to  some  eight  or  ten  tribes.  At  his  in- 
stigation, the  tribune  Sulpicius  proposed  and,  by  means  of 
tumult,  carried  a  law  distributing  the  new  voters  through  all 
the  tribes,  and  thus  giving  them  the  complete  control  of  the 
Comitia.  At  the  same  time,  he  enrolled  in  the  tribes  a  large 
number  of  freedmen.  Comitia  thus  formed  passed,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  an  enactment  depriving  Sulla  of  his  post,  and  trans- 
ferring the  command  to  Marius,  B.C.  88. 

The  insulted  consul  was  not  prepared  to  submit  to  his  ad- 
versary. Quitting  Rome,  he  made  an  appeal  to  his  legions, 
and  finding  them  ready  to  back  his  claims,  he  marched  straight 
upon  the  capital.  The  step  seems  to  have  been  a  complete  sur- 
prise to  Marius,  who  had  taken  no  precautions  to  meet  it.  In 
vain  did  the  Roman  people  seek  to  defend  their  city  from  the 
hostile  entrance  of  Roman  troops  under  a  Roman  general.  A 
threat  of  applying  the  torch  to  their  houses  quelled  them.  In 
vain  Marius,  collecting  such  forces  as  he  could  find,  withstood 
his  rival  in  the  streets  and  at  first  repulsed  him.  The  hasty 
levies  which  alone  he  had  been  able  to  raise  were  no  match  for 
the  legionaries.  The  victory  remained  with  Sulla;  and  the 
defeated  Marians  were  forced  to  seek  safety  in  flight.  Through 
a  wonderful  series  of  adventures,  the  late  director  of  affairs 
at  Rome,  with  his  son,  reached  Africa  an  almost  unattended 

Meantime,  at  Rome,  the  consul,  confident  in  his  armed 
strength,  proscribed  his  adversaries,  repealed  the  Sulpician 
laws,  put  Sulpicius  himself  to  death,  and  passed  various  meas- 
ures favorable  to  the  nobility.  But  he  could  not  remain  per- 
manently at  the  capital.  The  affairs  of  the  East  called  him 
away ;  and  no  sooner  was  he  gone  than  the  flames  of  civil  war 


burst  out  afresh.  Cinna,  raised  to  the  consulate  by  the  popular 
party,  endeavored  to  restore  the  exiled  Marius  and  to  re-enact 
the  laws  of  Sulpicius.  But  the  aristocrats  took  arms.  Cinna, 
forced  to  fly,  threw  himself,  like  Sulla,  upon  the  legionaries, 
and  having  obtained  their  support,  and  also  that  of  the  Italians 
generally,  while  at  the  same  time  he  invited  Marius  over  from 
Africa,  marched  on  Rome  with  his  partisans.  Again  the  city 
was  taken,  and  this  time  was  treated  like  one  conquered  from 
an  enemy.  The  friends  of  Sulla  were  butchered ;  the  houses 
of  the  rich  plundered ;  and  the  honor  of  noble  families  put  at 
the  mercy  of  slaves.  Prosecutions  of  those  who  had  escaped 
the  massacre  followed.  Sulla  was  proscribed,  and  a  reign  of 
terror  was  inaugurated  which  lasted  for  several  months.  But 
the  death  of  Marius,  early  in  B.C.  86,  put  a  stop  to  the  worst 
of  these  horrors,  though  Rome  remained  for  two  years  longer 
under  a  species  of  dictatorship,  constitutional  forms  being  sus- 

Meanwhile,  in  the  East,  Sulla  had  been  victorious  over  Mith- 
ridates,  had  recovered  Greece,  Macedonia,  and  Asia  Minor, 
crushed  Fimbria,  the  Marian  partisan,  who  sought  to  deprive 
him  of  his  laurels,  collected  vast  sums  of  money,  and,  above  all, 
brought  a  large  Roman  army  to  feel  that  devotion  to  his  person 
which  is  easily  inspired  in  soldiers  by  a  successful  general.  It 
is  creditable  to  Sulla  that  he  at  no  moment  allowed  his  private 
quarrels  to  interfere  with  the  public  interests,  but  postponed 
the  rectification  of  his  own  wrongs  until  he  had  taken  ample 
vengeance  for  those  of  his  country.  The  peace  of  Dardanus 
was  in  the  highest  degree  honorable  to  Rome  and  humiliating 
to  Mithridates,  who  not  only  abandoned  all  his  conquests,  but 
consented  to  a  fine  of  2000  talents  and  surrendered  his  fleet. 
Having  accomplished  in  five  campaigns,  conducted  mainly 
from  his  private  resources,  all  the  objects  of  the  war,  Sulla 
could  with  propriety  address  himself  to  the  settlement  of  his 
quarrel  with  the  Marians,  and  having  put  down  Fimbria  in 
Asia,  could  make  his  arrangements  for  fighting  out  the  civil 
struggle,  which  had  long  been  inevitable,  in  Italy  and  at  Rome 

The  determination  of  Sulla  to  return  to  Italy  at  the  head  of 
his  army,  and  measure  his  strength  against  that  of  the  Mar- 


ians,  had  been  apparent  from  the  moment  when  he  declined 
to  yield  his  command  to  Valerius  Flaccus,  B.C.  86.  The  gage 
of  battle  had  in  fact  been  thrown  down  to  him  by  his  adver- 
saries, when  they  declared  him  a  public  enemy,  and  he  would 
have  been  more  than  human  if  he  had  not  accepted  it.  He 
knew  that  the  party  of  the  nobles,  whereof  he  was  the  repre- 
sentative, was  still  strong  at  Rome,  and  he  felt  that  he  could 
count  on  the  army  which  he  had  now  so  often  led  to  victory. 
The  death  of  Marius  had  made  him  beyond  dispute  the  first  of 
living  generals.  There  was  none  among  the  leaders  of  the 
opposite  faction  for  whom  he  could  feel  much  respect,  unless 
it  were  the  self-restrained  and  far  from  popular  Sertorius. 
The  strength  of  his  adversaries  lay  in  the  Roman  mob  and 
in  the  Italians.  For  the  former  he  had  all  a  soldier's  contempt ; 
but  the  latter  he  knew  to  be  formidable.  He  therefore,  with 
adroit  policy,  prefaced  his  return  by  a  declaration  that  he  "  in- 
tended no  interference  with  the  rights  of  any  citizen,  new  or 
old."  The  Italians  accepted  the  pledge,  and  stood  neutral 
during  the  opening  scenes  of  the  contest. 

The  triumph  of  Sulla  and  the  nobles  was  stained  by  a  mur- 
derous cruelty  such  as  Rome  had  never  yet  witnessed.  Not 
only  were  the  leaders  of  the  late  war,  and  every  relation  of 
Marius  that  could  be  found,  put  to  death,  but  at  Rome  the 
wealthy  bourgeoisie,  and  in  the  provinces  the  disaffected 
Italians,  were  slaughtered  by  thousands.  The  fatal  "  lists  "  of 
the  "  proscribed  "  began ;  and  numbers  of  wholly  innocent  per- 
sons were  executed  merely  on  account  of  their  wealth.  Nearly 
3000  are  said  to  have  perished  at  Rome,  12,000  at  Praeneste, 
and  numbers  not  much  smaller  at  other  Italian  cities  which 
had  favored  the  Marians.  The  property  of  every  victim  was 
confiscated.  Sulla  remained  lord  of  Rome,  first  with  no  title, 
then  as  "  dictator,"  for  the  space  of  nearly  three  years,  when  he 
astonished  the  world  by  a  voluntary  abdication  of  power,  a 
retirement  to  Puteoli,  and  a  dedication  of  the  remainder  of  his 
life  to  amusement  and  sensual  pleasures.  First,  however,  by 
his  dictatorial  power  he  entirely  reformed  the  Roman  Consti- 
tution, depriving  it  of  all  elements  of  a  popular  character,  and 
concentrating  all  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Senate. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  violent  changes  introduced 


by  Sulla  into  the  Roman  constitution  could  long  remain  un- 
modified. The  popular  party  might  be  paralyzed  by  terror  for 
a  time ;  but  it  was  sure  to  revive.  The  excesses  of  the  nob